Read the comments.

I am writing as a Montana 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. As a Montanan, 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 Flathead National Forest and surrounding wilderness areas. 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 recreationalist, public lands user, and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). More roads=more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection and ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & 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 & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, soil erosion, and biodiversity. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about treaty-reserved resources, traditional gathering areas, and increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (USFS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & 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 & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the USFS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & 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 & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, soil erosion, biodiversity, climate resilience, and firefighter risk. USFS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the USFS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites, treaty-reserved resources, and increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 USFS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a environmental advocate, recreationalist, public lands user, concerned citizen, and Americorps alumni to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, firefighter safety, and ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised. I am particularly concerned about clean water, soil erosion, biodiversity, firefighter risk, and Ecological and social impacts. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about treaty-reserved resources and increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a recreationalist, public lands user, and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 and community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, biodiversity, and climate resilience. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about treaty-reserved resources and cultural forestscapes. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, soil erosion, invasive species, and biodiversity. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites, treaty-reserved resources, traditional gathering areas, cultural forestscapes, increased unauthorized access, and The continued historical disregard. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a wildland firefighter, recreationalist, public lands user, and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. As a recreationalist and community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiv. Inst.). More roads=more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection and ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, soil erosion, invasive species, biodiversity, and climate resilience. The FS should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites, treaty-reserved resources, and increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before a nationwide protection is removed. This is wrong and unjust. The things that have been happening are beyond unamerican and evil. The actions that have been taken are not benefiting the people of America. The true vermin that are spoiling our country are the ones that control it. They will do everything they can to make more money when they already have enough. They will obviously go to the lengths of bringing this country down. For these reasons, I urge the FS to retain the RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a environmental advocate and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve firefighter safety, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, and firefighter risk. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites, treaty-reserved resources, and increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a scientist and recreationalist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience, and landscape fire restoration. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about cultural forestscapes. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve firefighter safety, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat & connectivity. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a environmental advocate, recreationalist, public lands user, & concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 & community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiv. Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, firefighter safety, & ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat & connectivity, clean water, soil erosion, biodiversity, & climate resilience. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites, cultural forestscapes, & increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a scientist & public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 fire practitioner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, firefighter safety, & ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about clean water, soil erosion, invasive species, & landscape fire restoration. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites & increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a recreationalist, public lands user, and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 and community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, firefighter safety, and ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about climate resilience. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & 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, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a wildland firefighter to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 wildland firefighter, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about climate resilience. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about increased unauthorized access. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before a nationwide protection is removed. Roadless areas are sacred to all Americans and should be preserved. For these reasons, I urge the FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a environmental advocate, recreationalist, public lands user, and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, firefighter safety, and ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, climate resilience, and firefighter risk. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about sacred sites and treaty-reserved resources. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

I am writing as a wildland firefighter and public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & 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 RR was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, & 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 fire practitioner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the RR is necessary to reduce wildfire risk & 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 & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Inst.). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & 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 & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve firefighter safety and ecological resilience, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & 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 & hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised under Alt. 2 & 3. I am particularly concerned about landscape fire restoration. The FS 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 & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about cultural forestscapes. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, & resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places & 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 FS to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.