Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: 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 have spent many years hiking and exploring in the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests. My favorite memories are of the graceful hemlocks that once lined the streams where my dad fished for trout. The hemlocks were wiped out by disease. We as stewards of the land need to leave areas wild for future generations. 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. --

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. [Personalize: I spend time in and deeply value Roadless Areas, including those in national parks. I enjoy taking advantage of virgin forests there. These places matter to me and I want my children and their children to be able to access these same places without being spoiled. 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.

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, including the areas in southwest Virginia. I enjoy hiking, horseback riding, photography and solitude there. The natural landscape is a large reason why I live in this area. These areas provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests. These areas need to be protected from those who look at it and just see $$$ to be made. 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 (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I have 2 children who love to explore the wild and climb trees. Simply put, this land needs to be protected for this generation and the ones that follow. 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 (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. My family and I have spent many years in our area's public forests, and we deeply value Roadless Areas, including the Jefferson National Forest and George Washington National Forest. We enjoy hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding there. These places matter to me because I live in the Roanoke Valley, and these areas 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.