Read the comments.

US Forest Service docket number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66 I strongly object to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). Our Federal lands need to be managed at the Federal level to avoid local politics that typically involves local citizens wanting easier access and more opportunities for exploitation of the natural resources. Federal lands belong to ALL of the citizens of the United States, NOT to local entities or corporations. By maintaining a Federal lens on management of ALL of our public lands, a bigger picture outlook can be maintained. A few of the many examples of this includes widespread ecosystem management, tracking and managing biodiversity, watershed management that crosses multiple jurisdictions, and yes, even fire mitigation and control, which seems to be the reason given for this administration’s desire to give away the sanctity of our Federal lands, and roadless areas in particular. Systems are already in place to allow forest managers to request special dispensation for building new roads in our National Forests. The review process is lengthy on purpose, to allow for public comment, to ensure biological, geological, archeological and other data to be analyzed fully. The rescission of the Roadless Rule goes against the multiple use policy of the US Forest Service by putting timber harvesting over every other benefit of the forest ecosystem. The National Forest Management Act requires that plans shall assure multiple use and sustained yield of National Forest System products and services and include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)). The National Forest Management Act establishes the requirement for the Forest Service to develop land management plans, including direction in 16 U.S.C. 1604(a) and (b) for interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions. These statutory requirements are implemented through the Agency's land management planning framework, which require consideration of the plan area in the context of the broader landscape and requires that each plan reflects the unit's expected distinct roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation. The land management planning framework ensures each land management plan addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address, such as ecological integrity (including air, soil, and water), sources of public drinking water, diversity of plant and animal communities (including federally listed threatened and endangered species), sustainable recreation, scenic character, and protection of cultural and historic resources. Eliminating the Roadless Rule will undercut the integrity of the NFMA. Thank you for taking my comment.

US Forest Service docket number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66 I strongly object to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). Our Federal lands need to be managed at the Federal level to avoid local politics that typically involves local citizens wanting easier access and more opportunities for exploitation of the natural resources. Federal lands belong to ALL of the citizens of the United States, NOT to local entities or corporations. By maintaining a Federal lens on management of ALL of our public lands, a bigger picture outlook can be maintained. A few of the many examples of this includes widespread ecosystem management, tracking and managing biodiversity, watershed management that crosses multiple jurisdictions, and yes, even fire mitigation and control, which seems to be the reason given for this administration’s desire to give away the sanctity of our Federal lands, and roadless areas in particular. Systems are already in place to allow forest managers to request special dispensation for building new roads in our National Forests. The review process is lengthy on purpose, to allow for public comment, to ensure biological, geological, archeological and other data to be analyzed fully. The rescission of the Roadless Rule goes against the multiple use policy of the US Forest Service by putting timber harvesting over every other benefit of the forest ecosystem. The National Forest Management Act requires that plans shall assure multiple use and sustained yield of National Forest System products and services and include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)). The National Forest Management Act establishes the requirement for the Forest Service to develop land management plans, including direction in 16 U.S.C. 1604(a) and (b) for interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions. These statutory requirements are implemented through the Agency's land management planning framework, which require consideration of the plan area in the context of the broader landscape and requires that each plan reflects the unit's expected distinct roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation. The land management planning framework ensures each land management plan addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address, such as ecological integrity (including air, soil, and water), sources of public drinking water, diversity of plant and animal communities (including federally listed threatened and endangered species), sustainable recreation, scenic character, and protection of cultural and historic resources. Eliminating the Roadless Rule will undercut the integrity of the NFMA. Hands OFF our public lands!

US Forest Service docket number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66 I strongly object to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). Our Federal lands need to be managed at the Federal level to avoid local politics that typically involves local citizens wanting easier access and more opportunities for exploitation of the natural resources. Federal lands belong to ALL of the citizens of the United States, NOT to local entities or corporations. By maintaining a Federal lens on management of ALL of our public lands, a bigger picture outlook can be maintained. A few of the many examples of this includes widespread ecosystem management, tracking and managing biodiversity, watershed management that crosses multiple jurisdictions, and yes, even fire mitigation and control, which seems to be the reason given for this administration’s desire to give away the sanctity of our Federal lands, and roadless areas in particular. Systems are already in place to allow forest managers to request special dispensation for building new roads in our National Forests. The review process is lengthy on purpose, to allow for public comment, to ensure biological, geological, archeological and other data to be analyzed fully. The rescission of the Roadless Rule goes against the multiple use policy of the US Forest Service by putting timber harvesting over every other benefit of the forest ecosystem. The National Forest Management Act requires that plans shall assure multiple use and sustained yield of National Forest System products and services and include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)). The National Forest Management Act establishes the requirement for the Forest Service to develop land management plans, including direction in 16 U.S.C. 1604(a) and (b) for interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions. These statutory requirements are implemented through the Agency's land management planning framework, which require consideration of the plan area in the context of the broader landscape and requires that each plan reflects the unit's expected distinct roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation. The land management planning framework ensures each land management plan addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address, such as ecological integrity (including air, soil, and water), sources of public drinking water, diversity of plant and animal communities (including federally listed threatened and endangered species), sustainable recreation, scenic character, and protection of cultural and historic resources. Eliminating the Roadless Rule will undercut the integrity of the NFMA. Hands OFF our public lands!