Read the comments.

As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. A forest that matters to me is the Sequoia National Forest. It has been my second home and I cannot imagine life without it. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Lauren Sandifer West Hollywood, CA 90046

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Fishing both sides of the Sierra taught me this lesson: the most degraded places are around roads. I fished the up the South Fork Kern River. But cattle grazing and off-road vehicle activity ruined it. I sought more remote. What I found was more roads means greater abuse, more trash, and more environmental degradation. I have hiked and camped from the Appalachian Mountains to Hawaii, from our nation's southern border to its northern one with Canada to enjoy creation's magnificence, to witness nature's unfolding, for the open space free from congestion, noise, and pollution of human built environments. It sustains me, elevates me, rendering strength and hope for the world. In the Sequoia National Forest the inventoried roadless areas I care about include Woolstaff, Channell, Greenhorn Creek, Mill Creek, Woodpecker, South Sierra, Scodies, and Domelands. On the Inyo National Forest, I name Black Canyon, Coyote Southeast, Soldier Canyon, and Coyote North. Another road into any of them means more traffic, more noise, more dust, more trash, less intact habitat, less wildlife, and greater wildfire risk. I am a passionate wildflower lover and a devoted watcher of birds in their home environments. I have grave concerns for their continued existence, and am witnessing a diminution of species. The agency's own record speaks directly to what roads do to bird communities: the DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines around roads in forested habitat, and that road-noise in a roadless area cut bird abundance over 25%, with 31% of species avoiding noise entirely. The agency must explain specific mitigations it proposes for bird communities in the named roadless areas of the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests, and how such mitigations conforms with its own cited research. The wildfire argument for rescission collapses against the agency's own data. Wildfires are a constant presence in my life. Three fires occurred near my home, this year. I have seen the aftermath, and have great respect for the responders. The agency's own record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The agency must explain why the proposal departs from its own findings on fire occurrence, and reconcile the rescission with its own ignition data. The economic case for rescission is hollow. The Forest Service record concedes that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total US production, and the total oil and gas production from all NF lands is about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The FS cannot adequately maintain its current road inventory. Opening roadless areas to new construction exacerbates that terrible situation, especially given the funding shortfalls happening right now. I find it counterintuitive in the extreme. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis and explain how an action that cannot establish a clear net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency argues that state-specific approaches can replace a national rule. That approach was rejected by the courts. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids the same fate. It should also address the Tenth Circuit's holding that reversed a permanent injunction against the 2001 rule, finding: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency's claim that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority must be squared with that holding, and the basis for any contrary position stated plainly. From 31.5 years as an employee of a large municipal drinking water utility, I learned firsthand the necessity of protecting watersheds from degradation, whether from mining, logging, road construction, invasive species, or off-road vehicle recreation. Threatening watersheds is counter to the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States; "...promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY." The proposed rescission undercuts these constitutionally mandated purposes. The agency must address this conflict directly. We must protect all remaining intact habitat, thwart its fragmentation, fend off activities that would degrade its integrity, and leave for our progeny the gloriously alive and rich biological legacy earth provides us. This is why I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, David R McMullen 217 Terrace Dr Big Pine, CA 93513