Read the comments.

Public Comment Opposing the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66) Dear Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, I am writing to voice my firm opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I advocate for the permanent preservation of all 44.7 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) nationwide. The current federal baseline ensures a unified, robust standard of ecological integrity that localized forest plans simply cannot replicate. While I care about the protection of all national forests across every state, this proposal strikes incredibly close to home. I live in Arizona, where I have hiked and backpacked through the Tonto National Forest and around Mount Lemmon in the Coronado National Forest numerous times. I know firsthand how vital these unroaded spaces are to preserving the delicate desert-to-mountain ecosystems, protecting local municipal watersheds, and offering wild landscapes for quiet recreation. If the Roadless Rule is rescinded, the iconic backdrops of the Arizona National Scenic Trail which winds directly through IRAs in these forests could be forever scarred by industrial road construction and commercial logging. Furthermore, my personal connection to our national forests spans the country. I have had the privilege of creating beautiful memories hiking in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon, the George Washington National Forest in Virginia, and public lands near Ogden, Utah. Most deeply, I proposed to the love of my life in the Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington. These are not merely administrative parcels of land to be exploited; they are the irreplaceable geography of our lives. The impacts of this rescission also extend directly to my loved ones. I have family and friends who rely on the intact backcountries of Washington and Montana for hiking, hunting, and fishing. Millions of outdoor enthusiasts depend on the primitive habitats protected by the 2001 Rule to maintain healthy big game populations and native trout streams. I strongly reject the agency's primary justification that rescission is required for localized forest management, and I urge you to consider the following substantive points regarding wildfire and watershed degradation: - Increased Wildfire Risk and Human-Caused Ignitions: The Forest Service's own DEIS data confirms that repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule actually increases the probability and frequency of wildfire ignitions. Historically, inventoried roadless tracts have up to four times fewer wildfire starts than heavily roaded forest areas. Carving new road networks into remote backcountry provides vehicle access that introduces a primary source of human-caused ignitions. Furthermore, commercial logging operations open up the canopy, altering local microclimates by drying out understory vegetation, creating wind tunnels that accelerate fire spread, and introducing highly combustible fine fuels. - Severe Degradation of Watersheds and Drinking Water Resources: Roadless areas safeguard the headwaters of vital municipal watersheds that provide clean, unfiltered drinking water to over 25 to 60 million Americans. Roads inherently disrupt natural hydrology. Constructing new roads, culverts, and stream crossings triggers severe soil erosion and mass wasting events. The resulting sedimentation and toxic runoff empty directly into pristine headwater streams, choking aquatic habitats, decimating native trout and salmon spawning grounds, and threatening down-river municipal water supplies. This structural damage will force local communities to bear millions of dollars in skyrocketing water treatment and infrastructure costs. The Forest Service already possesses the administrative flexibility under the 2001 Rule to execute targeted hazardous fuel reductions and handle emergencies without stripping protection from 44.7 million acres of pristine public land. Adding more roads when the agency already faces an $8.6 billion deferred road maintenance backlog is environmentally and fiscally irresponsible. Our national forests are an interconnected legacy belonging to all Americans and future generations. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to reject the proposed rescission and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, James Le Gilbert, AZ 85296

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As a frequent visitor to the Coronado National Forest, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. I frequently hike and camp in the various mountain ranges that are part of Forest, enjoying the peace and solitude they offer. The existing roads already provide more than adequate access. For 25 years, the Roadless rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Dirk Van Peenen Tucson, AZ 85716 dvanpeenen@yahoo.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. This is especially true for all of the US Forest Service controlled land in the Coronado National Forest and surrounding areas. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Mary Harper 4157 E Bellevue St Tucson, AZ 85712-4509 galeharrier@gmail.com

Mr. Schultz, Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact by opting for Alternative 1. I live in a fire prone area along the US-Mexico border, with Coronado National Forest literally bordering our backyard. Our home was spared during the 2011 Monument Fire, however it burned down trees within 15 feet of our house. Fire is a constant and pervasive threat in Southern Arizona, and the canyons here are particularly difficult if not impossible to effectively fight fires in once they’ve begun. As wildfires are more than four times as likely to occur in areas with roads, rescinding this rule could directly endanger my family and our neighbors. The American People overwhelmingly support this rule and our public lands, with nearly 75% of people preferring the roadless rule remain in place. I ask that you please take the popular position of maintaining the roadless rule, and help protect not just our national forests, but the people who live amongst them. Sincerely, Brett Thompson 5179 E Lower Stump Canyon Rd Hereford, AZ 85615 bthompson8@gmail.com