Read the comments.

October 6, 2026 Joshua White, Acting Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation public comment Submitted electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-342438 on October 6, 2026 Dear Acting Director White, I am an individual Alaskan writing on my own behalf and on behalf of my family and future generations. I was raised and currently live in Southeast Alaska alongside the Tongass National Forest. The federal government should retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and should not proceed with rescission of the rule. The federal government should retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the Tongass National Forest. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule should not be changed or altered. Time and time again Americans have come out en masse in support of the Roadless Rule on federal land. This is particularly true for the Tongass National Forest, which holds much of this nation’s remaining roadless areas. The Roadless Rule has widespread support among Alaskans and among Southeast Alaskans who live in and around the Tongass. We see retaining unloaded areas as critical for the protection of a sound and healthy ecosystem in our region. The Roadless Rule provides critical protections for wildlife and helps to maintain habitat connectivity and, critically, productivity. Areas that are roaded have consistently over time become poorer producers of salmon and deer, key species that we rely upon for food security and for our families and dinner tables. Roading wild and unloaded places is permanent, or as near as humans get to permanent. Nowhere in this country where roads have been introduced have the areas been cleared of roads at a later time. Just about damn near everywhere in this country is within 5-10 miles of a road. This means that unroaded areas are a critically threatened national resource. There is no evidence that this vital quality can be restored. This country has recognized the importance of protecting roadless areas since the Wilderness Act of 1964. In the intervening 60 years protecting the remaining roadless areas has only become more important, and ever more critical. In the Tongass National Forest it is clear that roading has a negative impact on salmon habitat. Roading increases erosion, increases the speed and force of surface water flow, and has consistently been associated with blocked riparian habitat for anadromous fish, including habitat for the key five species of salmon; coho, chinook, chum, sockeye, and pink that are commercially harvested and provide critical income for Alaskans and others. In the Tongass, the Roadless Rule does not prevent transportation corridors between communities, utility corridors, or roads for access to key projects like mines or hydroelectric power sites. Here in Southeast Alaska we consider the Roadless Rule as critically important to protect the area from further large scale clearcut logging. The Tongass has already been heavily hit and unsustainably overharvested. Further clearcut logging projects should not take place, particularly at large scale, and in particular in or nearby the Inventoried Roadless Areas. The 2001 Roadless Rule should be retained to help protect the area from further logging. Drop the rescission! Leave the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and intact and unaltered! Your fellow American, Aaron Brakel 309 D Street Douglas, Alaska, 99824

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. The North Country Garden Club of Long Island, New York is deeply committed to conservation and environmental stewardship and has advocated for the protection of forests, flora, fauna, and biodiversity for well over a century, which is why we strongly oppose a rollback that would threaten ancient botanical carbon sinks, fragment vital wildlife corridors, and put at risk pristine watersheds supplying clean drinking water to more than 24 million Americans. Our members of the NCGC a Garden Club of America Member Club, appreciate the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA’s)—hiking, camping, fishing, horseback riding, birdwatching, backpacking, skiing, hunting, and viewing wildlife and the beautiful scenery in these largely undisturbed landscapes. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would irreparably harm these stunning landscapes, and, in turn, the well-being of our members who cherish and depend upon them. NCGC members spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas. These places matter to our organization as 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 protection. USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protection 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 Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 — Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Comments on the DEIS Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge USDA to select the No Action Alternative. I have spent time in Lake Tahoe throughout my life. Its forests, clear water, and mountain landscapes are part of my childhood memories and remain an important part of my life today. My connection to Tahoe has shaped my appreciation for public lands and the value of protecting places that people return to across generations. As an early childhood educator, I also care deeply about children having opportunities to explore nature, follow their curiosity, and build a connection to the world around them. The value of intact forests includes these experiences, which are difficult to capture in an economic analysis. I ask USDA to consider how additional roads and timber harvesting could affect the natural character of these places and the experiences they offer families. I understand the importance of reducing wildfire risk. The existing Rule already allows prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. Before removing protections nationwide, USDA should identify which necessary management activities are actually prevented by the Rule and explain why targeted changes would not adequately address those barriers. I am concerned that deferring environmental review to individual projects would leave the broader consequences of rescission insufficiently examined. Please revise the DEIS to assess the combined national and regional effects on forest fragmentation, wildlife corridors, native plants, watersheds, and drinking-water sources. For the Tongass National Forest, USDA should also demonstrate that its environmental analysis adequately addresses this proposal and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before making a final decision, including consideration of subsistence, cultural resources, and fish and wildlife. Spending time outdoors helps me recharge and connect with people I love. I want future generations to have those same opportunities. Please retain the Roadless Rule, address specific forest-management needs through targeted measures, and fully evaluate the broader consequences of removing these protections. Sincerely, Megan Reed Lockareff

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. 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.

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 - 14th Street, SW Washington, DC 20250 Mr. Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 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. Over the course of my life, I have spent considerable time in our nation's Roadless Areas, including George Washington Forest where I have enjoyed hiking, picnicking, and relishing the flora and fauna. These Roadless Areas provide a rebalancing of life's stresses, connection to our natural world, and provide clean water and protected wildlife habitat in our nation's increasingly rare intact forests. I would like yours and my grandchildren to similarly enjoy what you and I have been blessed with. 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 1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz, Chief U.S. Forest Service 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001: Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as described below. I spend time in the Bridger-Teton National Forest near Jackson, Wyoming, most recently this September, including the Inventoried Roadless Areas along the Gros Ventre River east of town. I hike there and watch for elk, moose and other wildlife. What stays with me is how quickly the land beyond the Gros Ventre Road opens into quiet, unbroken forest and ridgeline, a short drive from a busy valley. Places like this provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude and some of the last intact forest in the country, and they stay that way only because no roads cut through them. The Rule already permits substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and hazardous fuels reduction. USDA argues that rescission would lower wildfire risk, yet the DEIS cites research finding that the absence of roads has not impeded fire prevention or protection work. The DEIS also acknowledges that nearly 90 percent of wildfires are human caused and that fires are more than four times as likely to start near a road. New roads would add ignition sources, not remove them. If specific constraints on fuels work exist, USDA should identify and address them directly rather than remove protections nationwide. The DEIS does not adequately assess the reasonably foreseeable national and regional effects of removing protections from 44.7 million acres of public land. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific projects cannot fill that gap. Project-level reviews will not capture cumulative effects on landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plant communities, invasive species, interstate and cross-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, where elk, pronghorn and other wildlife move across multiple forests and state lines, those cumulative effects are the whole question. USDA should analyze now where rescission would most endanger intact habitat, wildlife movement and native plants, and where new roads and logging would most threaten watersheds and drinking water supplies. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres of the Tongass National Forest. USDA relies on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS but has not shown that this earlier analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation is also incomplete. USDA should fully weigh Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before reaching a final decision. I urge you to keep the Rule's national protections in place and to analyze the reasonably foreseeable effects of rescission now, before any final decision. Sincerely, Ryan McMorrow

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz, Chief U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 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: On behalf of The Fairfield Garden Club, I strongly urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), select the No Action Alternative, and revise the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to provide a more complete assessment of the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of rescinding these nationwide protections. Members of The Fairfield Garden Club value and enjoy the forests and roadless areas of the Northeast, including Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest, New York's Finger Lakes National Forest, and New Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest, among many other public lands. These areas provide opportunities for hiking, recreation, solitude, wildlife observation, and appreciation of intact natural landscapes. They also provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and connected ecosystems that benefit communities far beyond the boundaries of individual forests. For our members and many other members of the public, the absence of roads is itself an important conservation value. Roadless areas provide places where people can experience forests with fewer disturbances while also maintaining habitat connectivity and protecting watersheds. These lands should not be treated simply as areas awaiting future road construction or timber development. The existing Roadless Rule already permits important forest management The current Roadless Rule does not prohibit all forest management or wildfire-prevention activities. It allows substantial management activities, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction measures under applicable circumstances. The DEIS itself cites research indicating that the absence of roads has not prevented necessary fire prevention or fire protection measures. The DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human-caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the Rule's national protections in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now. Regards, Susan Bonner Ann Franzen Co-Presidents The Fairfield Garden Club

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

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 Rubicon in the El Dorado National Forest and the Tuolomne River in Stanislaus National forest and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas there]. I enjoy hiking tand fishing here. This place matters to me because I enjoy getting out in remote areas away from cars and traffic]. 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 reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now. attached file(s)

Brooke Rollins Secretary of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20250 RE: Keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule Docket ID FS-2025-000, RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Sec. Rollins: Since 2001 the roadless rule has protected millions of acres of some of the most beautiful, scenic and ecologically important land in the United States. I write to urge you to keep those protections in place; do not rescind the roadless rule. For purposes of this document, I will use “roadless” and “wilderness” interchangeably, as our roadless areas are generally named “wilderness” (e.g., Holy Cross Wilderness) Here in Colorado the roadless rule helps protect against wildfires, preserves the purity of drinking and irrigation water for Coloradans and those in downstream states (including your own home state of Texas), helps drive a tourism industry that contributes over $29 billion to our economy and provides habitat for thousands of different species. One of the stated reasons for repealing the roadless rule is the alleged benefit of wildfire mitigation. Wildfires are, of course, a major danger here in Colorado and the entire western US. However, all the data shows that 90% of wildfires occur within ½ mile of a road. Elimination of roadless areas will, in fact, increase the risk of wildfires. Therefore, such an action would be in willful disregard of the facts and would be arbitrary and capricious. Significant amounts of the water used for drinking and agriculture here in Colorado starts as snowpack and rainfall in wilderness areas. Moreover, these areas serve as water sources for our neighboring states. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska all use water from wilderness areas in the Front Range of our Rocky Mountains. To the west, the water from our wilderness areas drains into the Colorado River. As I am sure you are aware, the Colorado River is in crisis and we are rapidly approaching the point where those with lower priority water rights, such as the state of Arizona, could see their water reduced or even cut off. Other areas that rely on Colorado River water for hydroelectric power, like Las Vegas, may soon go dark. Areas with logging roads, as contemplated by this rule change, have up to 850% more erosion than undisturbed habitat. Not only would this erosion damage the fisheries here in Colorado – and damage our tourism economy – it will send silt into the various reservoirs that hold water for drinking and irrigation, compounding the serious problems we see in water storage facilities and reservoirs throughout the Southwest. This silt already reduces the available storage capacity for water. Repealing the roadless rule will further exacerbate the existing crisis. The repeal of the roadless rule makes no provision for all those who will be adversely impacted by this action, including consumers and farmers. It is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious. The repeal of the roadless rule would adversely impact on the tourism economies near these wilderness areas. I can testify that I, personally, spent a good deal of money in areas near the Eagle’s Nest, Holy Cross, Weminuche, and Sangre de Cristo areas this year alone. Small businesses such as fly-fishing shops, restaurants, outdoor equipment retailers and lodging providers will suffer greatly from the reduction in scenic value, fishing and watershed degradation and increased wildfire risk. Not accounting for the economic impact on these small businesses and small towns would be arbitrary, capricious and, I should add, cruel to those who live in these places. Old growth forests, such as those protected by the roadless rule, provide one of the most effective means we have for capturing carbon and reducing greenhouse gases. The Tongass National Forest has been called one of the most productive carbon-trapping forests on earth. That protection comes in large measure from the roadless rule. As you can see, repealing the roadless rule would not accomplish the stated goal of wildfire reduction. However, we would see increased atmospheric carbon, poor water quality, damage to reservoirs, devastation to local economies and an increased risk of wildfires. The proposed repeal of the rule is arbitrary and capricious, and I urge you to reject it. Yours most sincerely and respectfully, Michael J. Sexton

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 Inventoried Roadless Areas, including [insert place]. I enjoy [insert activity] there. These places matter to me because [insert personal connection]. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.] Look up Roadless Areas near you, areas you’ve visited, or plan to visit on this link. Insert your zip code to locate areas: https://roadless.org/learning/connect/find-areas. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.