Read the comments.

I am writing as a [___________] to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As a [ _________ ], I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about [_______]. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.

I am writing as a Montana citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As an active hiker and lover of the outdoors, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities. I have had the great privilege of doing international travel and am so grateful to have been born, raised and now love near the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness. The wilderness offers wonderful healing powers that I do not find in other places. A day of hiking is healing. Please keep Roadless areas Roadless!

I am writing as a concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As a resident of the Yaak river valley, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about Montana and the Yaak river valley. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.

Submit your comment here: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-223869 Please feel free to copy the text below to build your own comment. I am writing as a local [landowner___________] to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As a [ _owner of adjacent private land________ ], I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about [_Kootenai National Forest______]. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities. Feel free to add additional concerns.

My Name is Zahran Austin. I am writing as a recreationalist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. As a recreationalist, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the Forest Service to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve ecological resilience, and to fully account for the increased ignition risks and long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by a tradeoff analysis of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about biodiversity. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about treaty-reserved resources. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before a nationwide protection is removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.

I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. As an avid camper and educator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wild lands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wild lands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by a tradeoffs analysis of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about [ sacred sites. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before a nationwide protection is removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring

I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurement. As a geophysicist, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The ingress of non-native elements such as vehicles, people and animals has a detrimental effect on forest environments and increases geohazard threats. No additional roads are needed, the Roadless Rule should be retained for this and the next planning cycle.

I am writing as a NW Montana resident (who has a lot of respect for roadless areas) to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As a NW Montana resident who lives in the middle of a national forest, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. Any reasonably educated person knows that fire is an important part of forest ecology. More emphasis should be place on the urban interface to protect private property when it comes to managing for fires. Logging the backcountry is not going to prevent forest fires. Forests have evolved with wild fire to keep them naturally healthy. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. I am particularly concerned about loosing wildlands. What few roadless areas remain are extremely important for wildlife security and provide an opportunity for people who are able to experience undeveloped areas on our National Forests. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Sue Janssen

I am writing as a Resident to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities. Thank you, US Citizen

I am writing as an Utah and Montana resident, as well as an avid recreationer, to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As a landowner as well as a recreationist, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about protecting our watersheds, restricting development, and protecting sensitive wildlife habitat. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.

I am writing as a to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities. Thank you.

I am writing as to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about the wildlife that will be impacted. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of the local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protective measures. As a [ _________ ], I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road. It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by an analysis of trade-offs026.08.25 of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protections are removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.