Read the comments.

I do not support repealing the Roadless Rule, nor do I support Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential. This administration has been very transparent that it only values our environmental resources for what can be extracted from them. Natural resources require a holistic approach, especially when we are in a GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS, and I haven't heard any support for science-backed decisions regarding this matter. The proposal reads like an attempt to return jurisdiction to local decision-makers and to mitigate forest fires, but in concert with the map and executive orders, it reads as an incredibly transparent ploy to remove a roadblock from plundering our forests for timber. Forest fires are four times more likely to be started next to roads; and our large ancient trees do a vastly better job of removing carbon from our atmosphere. Money will not save the future of humanity; plundering our magnificent ancient forests seems shockingly shortsighted. Until this administration acknowledges actual environmental experts on issues like these, it will not have the trust of much of the American people.

The proposed rule change says: "In 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule established a single, nationwide set of prohibitions intended to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management." It goes on to say: "this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation [...]. In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.” In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” In Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the President declared that “it is the policy of the United States to fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources” and “maximize the development and production of the natural resources located on both Federal and State lands within Alaska.”" It goes on to say that even without protection of the Roadless Rule, NFMA requires that areas adopt land management plans that "addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address, such as ecological integrity, sources of public drinking water, diversity of plant and animal communities, sustainable recreation, scenic character, and protection of cultural and historic resources." It adds: "In 2001, USDA and the Forest Service asserted that a national prohibition was the best means to reduce conflict and potential for incremental impacts to the ecological and social values of these areas." It adds: "Where plans allow, rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule could increase management flexibility for access (roads), vegetation management, targeted fuels treatments, and access for minerals or energy uses." My comments: In the summary of key considerations it says that near-term permanent road additions would be likely on 45.5% of affected lands and temporary roads are likely on 28.3% of affected lands, totaling 73.8% of the currently roadless areas. It says timber harvesting would likely increase on 16% of affected areas, estimating a maximum of approximately $11.4M in revenue for the US govt. It says that 24% of the affected areas are in the wildland-urban interface and would improve the ability to suppress forest fires in those areas. It estimates $6.1M losses in economic benefits for recreation (reducing the net maximum revenue for the US govt to $5.1M, which appears to also be independent of the costs of road construction, which seem likely to exceed $5.1M--therefore, this rule does not project net increase in revenue for the US govt as a result of this rule change). It claims that there would not "likely" be a net increase in mineral development, despite also stating above that this rule change would further the goals of Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy. Those claims appear to be in conflict with each other. I support the original goals of the roadless rule, which is to preserve pristine wilderness areas from encroaching "incremental" deterioration. The stated description and justification for the rule attempt to have it both ways -- it says that the rule change would pave the way for paving, timber harvesting, mining, and resource extraction, but also that we don't need to worry because maybe local officials might not decide to do those things. It cites legitimate-sounding needs for wildfire mitigation and prevention, but officials could have submitted a narrower rule change limited to the wildland-urban interface areas; or suggested broadening the allowed exceptions to enable effective wildfire prevention and response without also opening the areas to more harvesting and encroachment. Instead they have proposed a rule change that their summary estimates will in the near-term be likely to result in impacts to 73.8% of affected lands currently protected as pristine roadless areas. Its summary also does not project a net profit for the US govt from these rule changes, once their maximum projected revenues are compared against their projected costs and reasonable plausible road construction costs. The Forest Service has a multi-use mandate, but this does not mean that every parcel of land is or should be expected to be multi-use, and it is necessary to protect these lands at the national level from incremental impact. These rare lands that remain pristine and wild should be protected and preserved as the unique and valuable receptacles of ecological habitat, natural wonder, and irreplaceable history. Once they are gone they cannot be brought back.

To Whom It May Concern: My name is Clara Hildman, and I live in Loveland, Colorado. I am writing as an individual to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I’m writing to specifically address the section of the proposal regarding Purpose and Need for Action where there is a paragraph that speaks about resource use in certain areas. “Specifically, this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.” In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” In Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the President declared that “it is the policy of the United States to fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources” and “maximize the development and production of the natural resources located on both Federal and State lands within Alaska.” Consistent with this policy, Executive Order 14153 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to reinstate the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule that exempted the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the 2001 Roadless Rule. This proposed rescission does not mandate timber cutting or road construction but would relieve regulatory burden relative to management of National Forest System lands.” I would like to highlight this last sentence in contrast to the previous language of what came before it. It seems to slightly contradict the previous phrasing of things like “...maximize the development…” and “...fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources”. I believe this proposed action requires adjustment because the current rule that is in place has been shown to improve the wilderness character, opportunities for solitude, a noticeable lessen in pollution, and protects our forests. For example, in my community, I have seen how the presence of trucks close to the wilderness area can affect the environment near said road. To improve this rule and better serve the public, I recommend that the agency: Find a alternative to rescinding the rule completely If the rule does get rescinded, to find restrictions and a type of strict management with the absence of this rule Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on this important matter and for your time in reviewing substantive public feedback. Sincerely, Clara Hildman

The proposed rule change says: "In 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule established a single, nationwide set of prohibitions intended to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management." It goes on to say: "this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation [...]. In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.” In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” In Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the President declared that “it is the policy of the United States to fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources” and “maximize the development and production of the natural resources located on both Federal and State In the summary of key considerations it says that near-term permanent road additions would be likely on 45.5% of affected lands and temporary roads are likely on 28.3% of affected lands, totaling 73.8% of the currently roadless areas. It says timber harvesting would likely increase on 16% of affected areas, estimating a maximum of approximately $11.4M in revenue for the US govt. It says that 24% of the affected areas are in the wildland-urban interface and would improve the ability to suppress forest fires in those areas. It estimates $6.1M losses in economic benefits for recreation (reducing the net maximum revenue for the US govt to $5.1M, which appears to also be independent of the costs of road construction, which seem likely to exceed $5.1M--therefore, this rule does not project net increase in revenue for the US govt as a result of this rule change). It claims that there would not "likely" be a net increase in mineral development, despite also stating above that this rule change would further the goals of Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy. Those claims appear to be in conflict with each other. I support the original goals of the roadless rule, which is to preserve pristine wilderness areas from encroaching "incremental" deterioration. The stated description and justification for the rule attempt to have it both ways -- it says that the rule change would pave the way for paving, timber harvesting, mining, and resource extraction, but also that we don't need to worry because maybe local officials might not decide to do those things. It cites legitimate-sounding needs for wildfire mitigation and prevention, but officials could have submitted a narrower rule change limited to the wildland-urban interface areas; or suggested broadening the allowed exceptions to enable effective wildfire prevention and response without also opening the areas to more harvesting and encroachment. Instead they have proposed a rule change that their summary estimates will in the near-term be likely to result in impacts to 73.8% of affected lands currently protected as pristine roadless areas. Its summary also does not project a net profit for the US govt from these rule changes, once their maximum projected revenues are compared against their projected costs and reasonable plausible road construction costs. The Forest Service has a multi-use mandate, but this does not mean that every parcel of land is or should be expected to be multi-use, and it is necessary to protect these lands at the national level from incremental impact. These rare lands that remain pristine and wild should be protected and preserved as the unique and valuable receptacles of ecological habitat, natural wonder, and irreplaceable history. Once they are gone they cannot be brought back.

As an individual, a Coloradan, and an American, I am concerned by the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which would open the door to misuse of public lands. The truth cleverly told is the biggest lie of all. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz have presented this rescission as a boon to forest management and wildfire risk reduction. They claim that 40% of roadless territory is at high wildfire risk, and that fire reduction treatment is long overdue. They assert that redirecting oversight from federal purview to local hands will improve outcomes. And doesn't it make sense? A one-size-fits-all federal rule couldn't possibly allow the flexible management necessary for individual forests and communities, right? But the messenger is the message. Rollins has little expertise in forest management but plenty in economics and agricultural development, and Schultz has a long history in logging for profit. The USDA's press release on August 18th fixated more on the Roadless Rule's hindrance of partisan administration objectives than strategically reducing wildfire risks and promoting wilderness health. The USDA stated, "The rescission aligns with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential." Removing the Roadless Rule is a paramount step in allowing private industry to access wilderness spaces, which is expressly against the wishes of the American public. Extractive industry-interested parties insist on pursuing the Rule's destruction, and the forest service appears to be acquiescing to their desires. Their continual refusal to hold open public hearings is a slap in the face of voters. The forest service manages eight times more miles of road than the entire US highway system. We can't manage the roads we do have, made clear by a maintenance backlog worth $6 billion. An astonishing number of fires in forests are due to human driven consequences - 80% of which are within a half mile of a road. The problem doesn't seem to be lack of roads so much as lack of resources to deal with fires when they arise, and if our money is going towards more roads it certainly isn't going towards fighting fires by the roads we already have. And while less than 5 percent of our land is roadless or wilderness, the outdoor recreation economy represents almost 2.4 percent of the entire U.S. GDP, and hunting generates a total economic output of over $107 billion. These activities rely on remoteness and land teeming with natural flora and fauna. They cultivate an appreciation for our American heritage as well promote our economy. Rashly endangering a healthy portion of our economy and environment for extractive corporate interests hardly seems wise. At some point in time, we will need to reevaluate the Roadless Rule. There should be exemptions and processes to allow the safe management of our lands when there are no other options or when local interests truly misalign with federal oversight. But the complete abolishment of a key stopgap for unbridled private industry is telling. There has been no discussion of how we will preserve wilderness spaces should roads need to be built. There is this assumption, it seems, that the details will pleasantly work themselves out, or that the profits from logging and oil will satisfy everyone to such an extent that we will not mind that our greatest national treasures have been overrun by corporate interests. The damage to delicate ecosystems could be generationally devastating. In conclusion, repealing the Roadless Rule in this hasty and simply profit-minded way is against the American spirit of things. A nostalgic fervor is gripping the regulatory agencies in question, and it biases them towards methods of the past. While true that we have used our natural resources mightily, and to such great effect that we reap the benefits of our forefather's actions today, it is not because their actions were eternally and universally applicable and effective. It is because they were gripped by the needs of their day. They were not looking back to how their grandparents did business. They looked forward to how they would be doing business. The actions which made us will not continue making us. It is a new day, and we need to sustain a new generation whose needs and desires seem to be ever more intertwined with the preservation of public lands, and protections of our environment, and industry that incorporates both of those goals. Until there is a concrete and publicly favorable plan to deal with wilderness areas that need roads, and protect those lands even after those roads are built, the overarching Roadless Area Conservation Rule needs to remain intact and in force.

Hello, I am commenting to say that I, like many other americans, wish to keep the Roadless Rule in place and unchanged. The Roadless Rule is detrimental to preserving soil, water, and air. It helps keep our drinking water clean with less run off from vehicles. It preserves the diversity of plants and animals by not cutting through ecosystems. Many habitats, endandered wildlife, and sensitive species require undisturbed land to thrive. The Roadless Rule has been a boon to human activity as well, creating beautiful undisturbed backcountry for recreation use and enjoyment. The proposal reasoning for recission are shoddy at best. The executive orders signed by Trump are unlawful. I greatly oppose executive order 14192. We need regulations to keep corporations in check from greedily taking more than they should and also for more responsible land management. We need regulations to keep our air, soil, and water clean. I oppose executive order 14225 for logging expansion. Our forests have dwindled enough. We should be looking into more sustainable options than lumber for our paper and wood use. Bamboo, hemp, and other plant materials grow faster with less water and land used. We need to pivot from our addiction to timber production. I oppose executive order 14154 for rescinding restrictions on coal and gas. Again, not sustainable for the long term. We should be shifting to nuclear, wind, geothermal, and of course solar. These alternatives don't create the same level of pollution and long term destruction of land for short term gain. I oppose executive order 14153 for opening up Alaska for drilling and timber sales. These wildlife areas are extremely detrimental to millions of birds, both migratory and fixed populations. It would affect game animals, predators and prey animals both, all the way up the food chain. We want to keep this land natural and preserve it for generations to come. Oil is a dying energy, switch to sustainable alternatives already! I greatly oppose the National Active Forest Management Strategy and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act 50301 for the increase of timber production by 25%, we can NOT sustain that. The amount of roads put in to harvest would also cost more than the timber production. We need to harvest less wood, and switch to alternatives mentioned above. We do NOT need more roads. Roads start more fires than they put out, by around seven times more. Putting in the roads would only increase access by around 3% total. The agency Roads cost money and the DEIS states it costs $80k to $100k per mile at the minimum, plus $5k to $50k per mile for yearly maintainace. The projected logging revenue gain from opening the logging areas is only $4 to $12 million a year nation wide. The DEIS does not show these numbers side by side, but when you do the math, the cost for the amount of roads needed would far outspend the amount being made. We already can't afford the roads we have, with a $7 to $8.4 billion dollar backlog for the Forest Service's own figures for road maintainance. There is no plan for maintaining these, as well as all the new roads being proposed. There has also been the finding by the agency's own analysis, showing “detrimental effects on ecosystem health including watershed health, forest health, and biodiversity.” In the biological assessment of the rescission shows it “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” 327 endangered listed species, as well as critical designated habitats. That alone should be the reason to stop trying to rescind the roadless rule. I wish to close with the following comments. I see nothing but short term greed that will have dire longterm consequences. If you care for the future of this planet, if at least for your children's sake, you will not support the rescission of the roadless rule as well. We share this planet, not just with our fellow man, but with all the nature of this world that keeps us alive. We will thrive as a species working together with nature rather than trying to control and extort nature. Have a care for this world instead of money. Do not disappoint the people, we all will be watching.

Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule aligns with President Trump’s Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation to get rid of overcomplicated, burdensome barriers that hamper American business and innovation. It also supports Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential which directs the Forest Service to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibitions are unnecessary in places like the Tongass which can be adequately protected through the normal national forest land management process as intended by Congress in 1976 when it enacted the National Forest Management Act. Congress enacted over 6.6 million acres of Wilderness and other restrictive land use categories prior to the promulgation of the Roadless Rule on the Tongass. The remaining areas, which the Roadless Rule restricts access to, were passed over so they could support local employment, including year-around timber manufacturing jobs in a region where there are minimal state or private timberlands available to the mills. Application of the 2001 Roadless Rule has severely impacted the social and economic fabric of Southeast Alaska communities and violates the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Tongass Timber Reform Act. It has devastated the timber industry where sustainable harvests have plummeted and employment is now a fraction of what it was prior to enactment of the rule. Under the 2001 Roadless Rule, road access to mineral claims has been made reliant on the subjective response to a project by Forest Service officials. The Tongass is a highly mineralized, 16.9-million-acre Volcanic Mass Sulfide (VMS) mining district that contains critical and rare earth minerals which are needed for national security. There are over 200 potential hydropower sites in Southeast Alaska. The Roadless Rule is a barrier to road access to mining claims, exploration, and development and hydropower development because the “reasonable access” the Rule provides does not necessarily mean road access. The Forest Supervisor can specify expensive helicopter access (even though there were no helicopters when the Mining Act of 1872 was enacted). Leaving what is reasonable access up to the responsible Forest Service official to determine what is “reasonable access’ or when a road is “needed” is subjective and does not adequately protect access rights. Rescission of the Roadless Rule would only make an additional 186,000 acres of the 16.9-million-acre Tongass National Forest available for timber harvest, roughly 1%. Thank You, Ben Schulman 907-632-5393

To the U.S. Forest Service: I write in strong support of rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, particularly as it applies to the Tongass National Forest. [Personal line, e.g.: "As a lifelong Alaskan who has worked for decades on resource development in this state, I have seen firsthand what this rule has cost Southeast Alaska communities."] Rescission is consistent with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, which directs agencies to remove overly complicated and burdensome barriers to American business and innovation. It also implements Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, which specifically directs the Forest Service to exempt the Tongass from the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule's blanket prohibitions were never necessary on the Tongass. When Congress enacted the National Forest Management Act in 1976, it established a forest planning process designed to weigh conservation and use on a forest-by-forest basis. That process is fully capable of protecting the Tongass's important ecological values without a one-size-fits-all national rule. Congress has also already struck the balance on the Tongass. Before the Roadless Rule was adopted, Congress designated more than 6.6 million acres of the forest as Wilderness and other restrictive land use categories through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). The lands Congress left out of those designations were left out deliberately, so they could support local employment, including year-round timber manufacturing jobs in a region where almost no state or private timberland is available to supply the mills. The Roadless Rule effectively overrode that congressional judgment, and in doing so it conflicts with both ANILCA and TTRA. The consequences have been severe. Sustainable timber harvests on the Tongass have plummeted, and timber employment in Southeast Alaska is now a fraction of what it was before the rule took effect. The loss of these jobs has damaged the social and economic fabric of communities that have few alternatives for year-round work. The rule also stands in the way of mineral and energy development that matters to the entire nation. The Tongass is highly mineralized, including volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits that contain critical and rare earth minerals needed for national security. Southeast Alaska also has more than 200 potential hydropower sites that could provide clean, affordable, renewable power to the region. Under the Roadless Rule, access to these resources depends on the subjective judgment of individual Forest Service officials. The "reasonable access" the rule guarantees to mining claims does not necessarily mean road access. A Forest Supervisor can instead require costly helicopter access, an outcome that the authors of the Mining Act of 1872 could never have contemplated. Leaving it to an individual official to decide what access is "reasonable," or when a road is "needed," creates uncertainty that discourages investment and fails to protect access rights established in law. Finally, the practical footprint of rescission is modest. Rescinding the rule would make only about 186,000 additional acres of the 16.9-million-acre Tongass available for timber harvest, roughly 1 percent of the forest. That is a small and reasonable change that would restore the balance Congress intended and give Southeast Alaska communities a real chance at economic stability. I urge the Forest Service to finalize rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Sarah Ward Anchorage, AK

Roadless Rule Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing in opposition to rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I support Alternative 1, no action. Undeveloped roadless areas and Wilderness are part of what defines Montana and other western states. They are what makes our state the envy of people from all over our nation and the world. Without them Montana would be just another place. Unroaded areas contain areas of unique special qualities but are not protected by wilderness designation. Many areas are wilderness study areas (WSA) but have been repeatedly blocked from gaining wilderness status by conservative legislatures. Unroaded areas often provide a buffer zone around our wilderness areas and National Parks and Monuments. Imagine if clearcuts or open mines were allowed around the perimeter of Glacier National Park. It has been stated that the purpose of rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule is to give control back to the local forests and reduce the burden of Washington’s over regulation. But in the body of the Roadless DEIS the following executive orders are found (pages 19-20 I believe): 1.Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation 2.Executive Order 14225: Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production 3.Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy 4.Executive Order 14153: Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential To me this sounds like an expansion of top-down management rather than bottom-up especially considering other actions we have seen from the current administration. Lastly, some bullet points to ponder: •The Bitterroot National Forest where I live has 2,246 miles of FS roads. For comparison the county, Ravalli, which is surrounded by the forest only has 1,450 miles of road. •Last spring after winter storms closed FS roads with fallen trees, local citizens opened some roads because the Forest Service lacks the resources to do so. •Forest roads are costly to maintain. That is why many are gated and others are in poor condition. Adding more roads will add to the maintenance cost in addition to the initial cost of construction. •Roads contribute to man-made forest fires, the spread of invasive plants, and can have negative effects on sensitive wildlife. Whenever I walk the forest roads in my area I see many invasive plants competing against native species and spreading outward into the forest. •Logging and mining can and does have negative effects on stream and river quality. •Roads are detrimental to recovering animal species such as Grizzly Bears, Lynx, and Wolverines. Roadless areas provide corridors for these animals to move about and expand their range.

My name is Dr Adrienne Greenlaw and I am in favor of the "Roadless Rule", introduced by the Clinton Administration and going into effect in 2001. My family has lived in New Hampshire for several generations and are proud to call this beautiful, mostly rural state, home. No matter how we make a living, or where we live, we can all appreciate how important it is to preserve national lands including national forests to protect the environment, endangered wildlife, water quality, ecotourism and promote healthy, outdoor activities like hiking and fishing. I have many memories of time spent with family in our beautiful White Mountains. My family will lose out on making beautiful memories in our national treasures, the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Please don't get rid of the Roadless Rule. How can you look your children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them their future spent in wild, untouched places doesn't matter. Regarding America's National Forests: The 2001 Roadless Rule rescission is proposed in order to " increase rural economic opportunity, unleash American energy and natural resources" , and "fully avail itself of America's vast lands and resources." President Trump's executive order 14192 is called "Unleashing prosperity through Deregulation." The environmental impact on wildlife would be irreversible, affecting migration in safe, green space corridors and protecting their shrinking habitat. Mineral and energy development would forever alter the currently untouched landscape. Visible infrastructure, noise and closures would impact the backcountry tourism trade and recreation. In addition, the health of the soils and water supply. Keep the Roadless Rule. Don't rescind. Yours sincerely,

Hi, my name is Thomas Fleming. I’m a frequent hiker who has enjoyed many national forests. I make regular trips to and through Allegheny National Forest, Green Mountain National Forest, and White Mountain National Forest. And this year I also made trips that led me on hikes in Mount Hood National Forest. All places that include inventoried roadless areas. I’m again stating that I am against the rescinding of the Roadless Rule. Despite the stated aim of this rescission being to restore local control, it is also in line with Executive Order 14192, regarding deregulation, and Executive Order 14225, regarding expanding timber production. These are goals that serve a broader vision of favoring extractive industries and disfavoring the recreational industries that me and many others who engage with these areas highly value. Protection of natural areas is never and has never been a default. That is why protections like this are important, and given the executive vision, I simply cannot trust at this time that this rescission will align with what I value about these spaces.

To whom it may concern, I am writing today to beg you to reconsider the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Greenlighting development in protected wilderness areas will have dire consequences for the flora, fauna, and human communities that depend on them. The inherent, intrinsic value of protecting our wilderness far outweighs any “economic” value that can be extracted from plundering it for its natural resources. Development will come with a steep cost: the fragmentation of habitat that will result will threaten biodiversity and contribute to the worsening climate crisis and general degradation of the planet, ruining the environment for generations to come. Ecosystems are fragile and complex, and they are already under threat from human activity, pollution and global warming. There are so few untouched wilderness areas left, and the Roadless Rule helps protect them. These areas will serve as vital refuge for endemic species whose very existence would be impossible without the ecosystems they evolved in. Running roads through these areas would damage habitat essential to the species that are most susceptible to a changing environment, leading to devastating losses of biodiversity (Nick M. Haddad et al’s “Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems”). Additionally, the introduction of pollutants from constructing these roads and running vehicles and increased foot-traffic through them will cause great harm as they enter root/soil, bodily, and water systems. The health of forestland and waterways will determine their ability to act as carbon sinks in this era of anthropogenic climate change; old growth forests are some of the best defenses we have against rising greenhouse gas emissions. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will cause irreparable damage to these already fragile ecosystems and introduce new problems that reduce these areas’ carbon capture potential and their ability to support life. Under the Rationale section of this proposal, it acknowledges maintaining “ecological integrity,” mitigating wildfire risk, and increasing access for forest/insect/disease management purposes, while simultaneously highlighting the need to access timber and mineral resources. These ideals cannot coexist. According to the language used in Donald Trump’s executive orders, especially E.O. 14153, it becomes clear that the true purpose of this proposal is for economic gain - the extraction and exploitation of the Earth’s precious materials. Roads often increase wildfire risk and decrease ecological integrity, as roads lead to traffic that can spawn wildfires from exhaust heat or sparks from metal scraping asphalt, rock, or other metal (Jennifer K Balch et al’s “Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States”). The increase in traffic can also lead to the movement of insects and disease, as the movement of people and cars can act as vectors that transport these. Lastly, the physical act of carving a road into the land can make it unstable, as this creates stress points and removes plants whose root systems were holding the land in place, leading to landslides. This does not sound like ecological integrity to me. Prosperity does not come from deregulation (EO 14192), destruction does. I can think of nothing more unpatriotic than ruining our country’s wilderness - landscapes that inspire patriotism through songs like “America the Beautiful” (Katharine Lee Bates and Samuel A. Ward) and “This Land Is Your Land” (Woody Guthrie). The language that is used in the executive orders that this proposal references paints a clear desire to access these lands for economic gain - an abuse of power that will undo the years of preservation granted by the Roadless Rule. 25 years ago, people foresaw the importance of protecting millions of acres of forestland, and this rule has been one of the most successful stories of land preservation this country has seen. Regulations like the 2001 Roadless Rule are put in place with good reason, researched and backed by experts. That the advice of experts can be overridden by one man’s word is extremely disappointing. Why does the Forest Service want to bend the knee to one man’s desires? The Roadless Rule was put into place to ensure that these areas could be enjoyed by everyone and continue to provide crucial habitat in a country whose landscape has already been poisoned and marred by the dangerous ideals of capitalistic growth. There are already hundreds of thousands of miles of road running throughout this country’s national parks and forestlands, providing ample connectivity and access to nature for recreation, management purposes, and beyond. To remove federal regulation sets a dangerous precedent, allowing for untold damage to occur in its absence. This land is for you and me; it is not for sale. Please protect the land, the water, and the people and animals that depend on them. Save the Roadless Rule

I live in Belfair, Wa and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, camping, fishing, trail volunteering, camping, wildlife watching, and living near a National Forest community. Natural unspoiled ecosystems like deep forests are key to the survival of all creatures and peoples, they are tied to the health of our air and water and can never be replaced. Mount Zion is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Mount Zion Inventoried Roadless Area in Olympic National Forest. All of these are sacred natural spaces they are bastions for the health of our species, a legacy we leave to our children and their children. I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. We cannot maintain the roads we have and it will ruin these sacred places. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. They provide large connected habitats that are increasingly difficult to find. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Maintaining untouched wilderness is key for healthy unpolluted natural water sources. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. These lands cannot be replaced, our unconscious souls are tied to these places. I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. Why is the existing rule not enough? I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. The administrative priorities are backwards and greed will kill our species and every other species if this goes unchecked. The Roadless Rule is essential for wildlife corridors. It protects future generation's access to pristine nature. It protects 44.7 acres of forest roads. What you are proposing will create gateways for extractive industries. I strongly oppose removing the Roadless Rule and ask for the Forest Service to adopt a no action alternative" to keep the Rule intact. Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads. Roadless areas are carbon vaults. Many of these areas are the foundation of pristine watersheds that cities rely on. Road maintenance is significantly more costly than no roads! Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA ensure that roadless values are protected through individual forest plans and project-level decisions if the national rule is removed? It’s written on your own USDA website… “The proposed rescission reflects the administration’s commitment to return authority to local line officers and ensure they have the tools needed to restore forest health and productivity. The rescission aligns with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential.” Telling us your plans to sell our public lands to private timber companies and mining companies. For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Laura. A mother, teacher, and musician

The USFS should stop the rule making process to rescind time 2001 Roadless Rule (66FR3244). Preserving forests means protecting them not only from fire, but from the political and corporate interests that continuously seek to monetize public lands. The USFS's own research (Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness, 2020, Sean P. Healey Environmental Research Letters. 15: 104023.) has shown that human-caused wildland fire occurs at higher rates near roads than in roadless areas. While more rapid response to fire, facilitated by roads, may decrease the size the fire, this is offset be the increased fire frequency. Studies have shown time and time again, if you want to protect homes in the wildland urban interface you need to fire proof the structure not cut down all the trees. In addition, the rescinding of the roadless rule implies that wildfire risk will be reduced by thinning. This may be true for the short term but, without follow-up maintenance or prescribed burns, thinned forests often experience dense spurts of sapling and brush regrowth, which can recreate high fuel loads in less than 10 years. Analysis from the same study cited above showed that roads are strongly associated with the spread of invasive plant species in national forests. Non-native plants are twice as common within 500 feet of a road as farther away. The study concludes that based on 20 years of monitoring data rescinding the roadless rule road prohibitions would not improve forest health or reduce wildfire risk. Invasive plant species degrade the land for wildlife and livestock. Adding roads and increasing road density will also fragment the habitat, which has been shown to have a negative effect on forest plants and animals, and increase human/wildlife conflict. Roadless areas are important to the survival and well being of threatened and endangered species. Most roadless areas are located remotely at the top of pristine watersheds. Road building, development and resource extraction will have a negative impact on the watershed's water quality and quantity, which impacts all downstream users. One of USFS goals in the rescinding the Roadless Rule is to increase local control. This goal conflicts with current policy and executive orders (Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, and Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy). The current policy combined with these executive orders will increase non-local development and resource extraction. Plus, the USFS's increased weakening of NEPA combined categorical exclusions will further erode the already limited local public input. In Montana, where I live, polls indicate that 80% of the state favors keeping roadless areas as they are. Part of the reason we favor it is for recreation, which is a big contributor to the state's economy. But it is more than that, it is also the solitude and stress relief people get from being out in nature. The USFS asks for viable alternatives to rescinding the Roadless Rule. I say, do nothing. Keep roadless areas as they are. If you are looking for economic justification, how about all the below cost timber sales on USFS lands we could avoid? That money saved for doing nothing should be enough justification. If not, you can include the clean up costs the government ends up stuck with to clean up after mining companies that go bust. Finally, the loss of recreation dollars that are spent visiting the untrampled roadless areas.

My name is Gennifer H Walker; I strongly Oppose any New or amended addendums added to the Roadless Act that has already been put into place back in 2001 by the Clinton administration. None of the conservation act or protections should ever be miss used or handled in any way. Nepa and the Epa are organizations put in place to maintain and protect our wildlife and resources from being compromised by corporate greed. Corporate Greed is what we indeed have going on here folks. I'm currently Located in Washington state where I have seen the demolition and destruction at a rapid pace with our deforestation, our wildlife disappearing and the water source completely vanishing from our region. Since 2015 after my father John R. Walker passed away Aug 19,2015 it's literally been a free for all on all the timber lands that used to be Pope Resources. Rayonier and David Neunes have taken an extreme amount of timber depleting our eco system as well as driving our wildlife elsewhere. It's been 3 years now with very minimal to no rain or snow fall, and we are not okay with that. I Fear that if we open up the 4.8 million acres to domestic partners like timber companies, builder associations or mining corps we can see a catastrophic weather change as well as lack of fresh water clean air and global balance. Our National Parks Aswell as our Old Growth Forests should be preserved and saved accordingly so that our next generations and the next can also have fresh water and clean air as a global statute. Case # RIN 0596-AD66 and others in jeopardy I Pray that our 119th congress will redact all E.O's signed by Trump and his Cabinet. I Pray that our 119th congress will come to their senses and decide what is truly right. Our Mother Earth can't keep taking blows like this and we can't always expect that she will miraculously replenish herself. If there is too much Timber harvested from our Northern (North America) and Southern (South America) Regions "left and right lung" we will cease to even exist. Al Gore has already done a study on if all the timber was ever taken for granted back in the 2000s and late 1900s. E.O 14192,14154,14153 are all ploys to open up the doors for profit on what is left of our resources to maintain healthy sustainable eco system. If Trump and his administration move forward on the Executive Orders in accordance with changing the Roadless Rule it will systematically destroy all fresh air and clean water Globally. We will see more droughts where there never used to be any and land itself will become unsustainable. excuse me for being redundant but seems like I need to say it more than once. Our First Nations like the Heida and Tlingit should be the ones to handle all DNR in their region as well as the first nations here in ours. The first ones to be the keepers of these lands before any government or department was even put into place in this so-called "Home of the Free and Land of the Brave" United States. Department of Natural Resources claims they Propose to clean all the underbrush, sick or diseased trees out of our national forests or protected lands in order to keep the wildfires to a minimum. To my knowledge and understanding our old growth forests have minimal to no wildfires due to the high amount of oxygen they carry in the density of the old growth forests itself. The Trump administration as well as the department of interior are literally going into all national archive data bases and collecting all and any Real Estate or REITs that list Fee Simple from the people's papers. To my understanding it is prohibited due to the Freedom of Information Act aka FOIA to withhold any information from the next decedents in line to inherit or obtain such documents in holding. Fee simple in land deeds mean for all of eternity the lands were supposed to be passed down the line indefinitely, or do we not follow those terms anymore. In 2015 to 2025 the Amazon Rainforest was logged and sold to the highest bidder due to resources like oil to AMO and Arco. During that duration lands have become uninhabitable amongst the people of the Amazon Biome and Guiana Shield and will take decades if not generations to regain what was lost down there. not to mention the destruction of climate change and influx of super storms accruing at a rapid pace. there is a reason why in the past there was a certain percent only allowed to keep everything in balance for all to live on our mother earth comfortably. Once the mark goes above the minimum we will all be in danger. since the 18% of deforestation was done down in the south Americas our waters have been warming, and our phytoplankton has been rapidly depleting in our oceans at a rapid downward spiral. Our whales have been dying Aswell as our arctic animals. Without our Roadless Conservation Act and Rules of 2001 in place for Protections our everything we call home will cease to exist. I am Strongly encouraging all of you to claw back the new rules and E.Os. Sincerely Genn Walker

I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to rescind the permanent 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule because the stated Purpose and Need for Action is invalid given its basis in Executive Orders (EOs), as opposed to constitutionally legitimate law. The four EOs are: -EO 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential -EO 14154, Unleashing American Energy -EO 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation -EO 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production Theses EOs are not an appropriate basis for rescinding a permanent Conservation Rule for two reasons: 1 - Whereas the President of the United States has the authority to issue EOs under Article II of the US Constitution, that authority comes with a specific duty: to make sure the laws be faithfully executed. In contrast, these four EOs add up to rescinding—not executing—a permanent rule and are therefore outside the scope of Article II of the Constitution. 2 - Donald Trump, who issued these orders, does not own these resources entrusted to the USDA and the USFS. Rather, the citizens of the United States own them. Therefore, the matter of changing a permanent Rule (or not changing it, given that it’s permanent) should be left to Congress to consider on behalf of their constituents, with thoughtful input from scientists and data-driven studies that formed the rationale for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the first place.

I oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule because removing federal protections from these lands will open them to commercial exploitation by so-called local land managers. Rescission will threaten vital backcountry ecosystems, clean drinking water sources, and wildlife habitats (for salmon, elk, grizzly bears and others), as well as thousands of miles of public trails. The USDA says “The rescission removes national designation of roadless areas but does not mandate timber cutting or road construction. The action removes regulatory burden and sends decisions about roadless areas to the local national forest managers.” National forests require national oversight, not the short-sighted drive for profit at the expense of a livable ecosystem. “Active forest management to mitigate wildfire risk” the reasoning used by the USDA in favor of the rescission can be undertaken under current policy on more than a quarter of these lands—11.3 million acres— which are already near existing roads. The fact that the rescission aligns with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, tells us something important: the current Administration is not interested in wildfire prevention or keeping wild lands protected for all species, including humans. Their intent and desire is for profit only. No rescission of the Roadless Rule!!

The proposed rule has some justifications that are good (wildfire management, etc.) though I question whether additional roads will actually help very much with that without data to back it up. The main problem I have with this proposed rule is that while it does bring up some good points it is very clear that the main goal is not those justifications, it is simply to increase resource extraction possibilities: > this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.” In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” I also don't see how "you can't build roads here to harvest timber" is more onerous regulation than "well depending on where you are in the country you may or may not be able to build a road here to harvest timber". Also 58.5 million acres is tiny in the grand scheme of the United States. Why break down protections for a relatively small pieces of the US forest system in order to get a benefit that is, according to your own analysis, on the order of $100 million? We spend that much on a couple days of the Iran war. Sums larger than that get lost every year by the Department of Defense that can't even pass a simple audit. Hire more people for the IRS and audit rich tax dodgers and you'll make more than this per year. Not every bit of the forest should be easy to access. The ability of Americans to get far out into nature and reset themselves is more important than a timber company making 0.5% extra revenue on their balance sheet. Jason

The creation of roadless areas in 2001 was and still is a forward-thinking act of the federal government which provides multi use opportunities for the people of the United States along with visitors to the U.S. . It serves not only as a bank account for the American people, but also provides an incredible wealth of opportunity for recreation, hunting, fishing and peaceful enjoyment of the American people. To take such opportunities away from the citizens of the U.S. is shortsighted and is in accord with neither the American spirit nor the desires of us citizens. This is an emphatic “NO” to giving away our legacy. It is apparent to most US citizens that Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, is not about prosperity for “the people” of the U.S. but for the increase of wealth for the president, his family and those that bow down to him. This is not simply opinion, but a simple correlation one can make by looking at other executive orders and how they prioritize the production of wealth for the president and those in his close orbit. The production of wealth for this purpose goes against the foundation of the purpose of the federal government. For this reason alone, the proposed opening up of roadless areas should be rejected.

I am writing to implore you to preserve and protect our most sacred resource, our wild and roadless lands, by upholding the Roadless Rule. Although the government has said that rescinding the rule would serve to prevent forest fires that is a clear and easily detected lie as 85% of forest fires are started by humans and most of them near roads! It is obvious that the intent of rescinding the Roadless Rule is to extract resources. Trump himself said so on National TV. Clearly, rescinding the Roadless Rule would only facilitate Trumps Executive orders: Executive Order 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation", Executive Order 14225, "Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production", Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy", and Executive Order 14153, "Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential", at the expense of the forests, valleys, mountains, rivers and animals that Americans hold so dear. For the love of God do not allow this.