Read the comments.

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I spend time in and deeply value Roadless Areas. These places matter to me because they provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. We love these Roadless Areas, especially The Northern Massanutten roadless area. We enjoy hiking there. These places matter to us because there are so few places saved like this. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA must adequately assess the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. Relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission, would be harmful to the purposes of the . USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I value the inventoried roadless areas in my state because they are increasingly rare. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in placeand reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.