Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I look for barred owls in my local neighborhoods and keep my eye on the sky when traveling around the state, both north and south, through the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest region. My city and neighboring cities' water supplies depend on roadless areas as water sources, and knowing that my water quality is at risk of having sediment increases and overall quality losses is frightening. I should not have to worry about the quality of my water in my home city. Public land should be managed for ensuring that the environment we live in remains healthy. If the area around us is choked with roads and timber industry, we will suffocated along with our forests. The land itself has a right to proper management. My children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on all deserve to inherit spaces that connect us to our origins as a species and as a society. Getting out in nature is beneficial for our well-being and health, and that is priceless compared to the short-term gain of having some more roads. It does not make sense to build roads into forested areas that do not already have them when we cannot manage to maintain the roads we already have. Prices for maintaining roads will only increase as we develop new ones, compounding the deficit in budget. Roads built haphazardly due to budget restrictions are worse than no roads. A forest can maintain itself, but roads will not. The country I am writing about includes the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied I go out to watch wildlife and birds, and what I look for lives in unbroken habitat. The agency measured what fragmentation costs and then set the finding aside. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 2: Elk survival, in the agency's own citation I watch wildlife, and the animals I go looking for need country roads have not reached. The agency's own citation makes that point better than I can. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. No population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity. Issue 3: Carbon is stated and dropped The standing forests where I watch wildlife are doing quiet work the whole time, holding carbon. The agency states what these lands store and then drops the analysis. The DEIS cites the estimate that these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons. The DEIS concludes these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of harvest and roading. I ask that the agency quantify the change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Aedan McCall Seattle, WA

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I want to see the neotropical migrants that winter in central and south american have the uninterrupted canopy they need to sucessfully nest. Where I hike and camp, and what I go for: "The rock shelters in southern Indiana are spectacular and deserve protections." Protect roadless areas nationwide. The Hoosier is nearest to me, but I care about all the national forests. The country I am writing about includes the Hoosier National Forest. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied I go out to watch wildlife and birds, and what I look for lives in unbroken habitat. The agency measured what fragmentation costs and then set the finding aside. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 2: Elk survival, in the agency's own citation I watch wildlife, and the animals I go looking for need country roads have not reached. The agency's own citation makes that point better than I can. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. No population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity. Issue 3: Carbon is stated and dropped The standing forests where I watch wildlife are doing quiet work the whole time, holding carbon. The agency states what these lands store and then drops the analysis. The DEIS cites the estimate that these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons. The DEIS concludes these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of harvest and roading. I ask that the agency quantify the change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative. Issue 4: The agency's own assessments predict harm to 327 protected species I spend my time looking for wildlife in these forests, and the rarest of it is exactly what the agency's own assessments say this action is likely to harm. The agency's 428-page draft biological assessment closes: "Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will increase the likelihood of road construction and timber harvests occurring in locations previously considered inventoried roadless areas. In many cases the Forest Service anticipates this increased activity to adversely affect some ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitats." The DEIS tallies the determinations: "may affect, likely to adversely affect" for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats. Not may: will increase the likelihood, and the agency anticipates the harm. The phrase "likely to adversely affect" appears more than 150 times across the USFWS assessment alone, and the proposal identifies mitigation for none of it. I ask that the agency disclose, species by species, how the likely adverse effects its own biological assessments identify will be avoided or mitigated, and that ESA consultation be completed and published before any final rule. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Tom Zeller

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hiking all over to enjoy the peace, quiet, and escape from reality. If we destroy that, we have nothing to live for. Biking all over to enjoy the peace, quiet, and escape from reality. If we destroy that, we have nothing to live for. Only had the opportunity to visit Olympic for a week, but the shear beauty of it all is irreplaceable. Losing this would mean that scenic trails and views are destroyed forever, and that is tragic and a loss that is irreplaceable. The serenity and bliss that is deschutes cannot be replaced, do not destroy it or it will be lost forever. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas: - Olympic National Forest (86,000 acres), Olympic National Forest, Washington - Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF (415,000 acres), Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, Washington - Deschutes National Forest (136,000 acres), Deschutes National Forest, Oregon - High Uintas Wilderness (1,394,000 acres), High Uintas Wilderness, Utah - Coconino Rim (7,213 acres), Kaibab NF, Arizona I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied I go out to watch wildlife and birds, and what I look for lives in unbroken habitat. The agency measured what fragmentation costs and then set the finding aside. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 2: Elk survival, in the agency’s own citation I watch wildlife, and the animals I go looking for need country roads have not reached. The agency's own citation makes that point better than I can. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. No population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity. Issue 3: Carbon is stated and dropped The standing forests where I watch wildlife are doing quiet work the whole time, holding carbon. The agency states what these lands store and then drops the analysis. The DEIS cites the estimate that these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons. The DEIS concludes these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of harvest and roading. I ask that the agency quantify the change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule’s protections for the areas named above. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency’s own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Abby Ahler Melissa, TX

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 While hiking in wilderness quality lands the last few years, I have seen and taken photos of bear, moose, elk, deer and attempting photos of raptors. The Western Slope in Colorado have endless opportunities for hiking and camping. I enjoy the solitude, the scenic landscapes and the wildlife - and just getting far off into the forest. The public lands out west have an abundance of valuable resources that provide for the local communities - recreation, clean water and clean air, hunting, fishing. These resources are vital to our communities and should be managed as such. Too much emphasis has been placed on the extractive industries which run counter to the resources mentioned above. I have a young daughter, and I feel we are not going to leave a valuable legacy to our kids of these public lands that need protection. The decades long drought out west and the way our distribution of water is managed has caused the disastrous current position in a water crisis out west. We need our watersheds to be a high priority for the Forest Service and BLM. Logging and the extractive industries present too high of a risk to this valuable resource. Living out west the last 30 years, I have experienced many wildfire events. A few of these have put me on evacuation notices; and many from all over the west has caused hazy, smoky skies that frankly add stress and anxiety to my life. On my comment in the 2025 round: "I can not recall receiving a reply from my comments from the first round." I work for a non profit conservation center and for the last 8 years have led a group hiking program. I take community members out into the nearby mountains, recommended wilderness areas, and canyon country. But mostly I explore these areas on my own. Of Special interest to me - the West Elk Mts, The Ragged Mts; the San Juan Mts. To name a few. Most of these areas are currently either part of the Roadless Rule or designated wilderness. It would be a devastating sight for me if a new forest road is added to this area. We have thousands of Forest Roads already - there is no need to add any more. The country I am writing about includes the San Juan National Forest. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied I go out to watch wildlife and birds, and what I look for lives in unbroken habitat. The agency measured what fragmentation costs and then set the finding aside. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 2: Elk survival, in the agency’s own citation I watch wildlife, and the animals I go looking for need country roads have not reached. The agency's own citation makes that point better than I can. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. No population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity. Issue 3: Carbon is stated and dropped The standing forests where I watch wildlife are doing quiet work the whole time, holding carbon. The agency states what these lands store and then drops the analysis. The DEIS cites the estimate that these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons. The DEIS concludes these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of harvest and roading. I ask that the agency quantify the change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule’s protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency’s own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Michael Burkley 40843 O Road Paonia, CO 81428