Read the comments.

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

Melissa Dillier 650 N Main St Bristol, NH 03222 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule Docket Number: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director, As a resident of New Hampshire, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Our state’s roadless areas, particularly within the White Mountain National Forest, provide irreplaceable ecological, recreational, and economic value that must remain protected from commercial logging and road construction. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections for New Hampshire for the following reasons: 1. Protection of Watersheds and Drinking Water: Roadless areas act as natural filtration systems. In New Hampshire, these pristine landscapes safeguard the headwaters of major rivers that supply clean, reliable drinking water to thousands of local residents and downstream communities. Building roads and introducing commercial logging would increase erosion, degrade water quality, and threaten municipal water supplies. 2. Support for the Outdoor Recreation Economy: New Hampshire’s economy relies heavily on tourism, outdoor recreation, and the fall foliage season. Visitors flock to our backcountry areas for hiking, camping, fishing, and wildlife viewing because they offer a rare sense of solitude and untouched natural beauty. Fragmenting these landscapes with roads would severely diminish the wilderness experience that drives our local tourism economy. 3. Wildlife Habitat and Climate Resilience: The continuous forest canopies in New Hampshire’s roadless sections serve as critical habitats for native species, including brook trout, American marten, and migratory birds. These large, unfragmented blocks of forest are also essential for climate resilience, allowing species to migrate and adapt to changing conditions while acting as vital carbon sinks. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately account for the long-term economic loss to New Hampshire’s recreation sector and the permanent damage to our high-quality watersheds. Thank you for considering the perspective of New Hampshire residents. I strongly urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Melissa Dillier