Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Camping, rafting, and backpacking throughout the West has been part of my entire life. I rely on these places for solitude and the chance to connect with nature, and the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens both. I oppose it. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale at the center of this proposal. The DEIS 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." That finding sits in the same document being used to justify opening these areas. The agency must explain how it can cite wildfire management as a reason for rescission while its own analysis documents that road access drives ignition rates upward. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with its own conclusions about ignition risk. The ignition data makes the contradiction more precise, not less. The DEIS reports that "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." A ratio that wide is not a rounding error. The places I have spent my life traveling through, camping and backpacking in the backcountry of the West, are precisely the kind of low-ignition environments this data describes. The agency has not explained how new road access into these areas would produce a net improvement in fire conditions. It must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh that number honestly against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. Access to clean water should be a basic human right. Adding roadways to America's already over-taxed watersheds will do irreparable harm, and the agency's own analysis does not contradict that concern. The DEIS acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The watersheds fed by these roadless areas supply drinking water to millions of people. Opening them to road construction is not a reversible experiment. The agency should explain what safeguards, if any, it has analyzed that would prevent the kind of sediment loading its own documents describe, and it should respond to the water quality implications of this rescission. The regulatory flexibility certification in this rulemaking does not hold up. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." The no-impact conclusion is reached by spreading projected losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. Some of those firms may lose these receipts entirely. Spreading the damage thinly across a national average does not make it disappear for the businesses actually exposed. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating inside the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the agency has not fulfilled its own invitation. "The proposal solicits 'any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal' (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none." This comment is one such interest. I have organized my outdoor life around the existence of these protected areas. Under established administrative law, an agency reversing a longstanding policy must assess the reliance interests its prior rule created, not merely ask for them and then set them aside. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Kate Lips Salt Lake City, UT

To the USDA Roadless Rule Team: As a Coloradan, and a wildlife enthusiast, I believe the 2001 rule is the single most important land management instrument and the threat of its removal is not only catastrophic but infuriating. Every year, I take a fall trip to explore these beautiful mountains and every year I am left with wonder. Seeing new wildlife, a new sunset, a new plant, a riverbed - it never ceases to amaze me. The protection of these ecosystems are imperative for us, but also for all. Being able to backpack through these undisturbed mountains and connect with other life is one of the few things that bring me joy and peace in such a hectic world. Roads end that possibility. Regarding the Mount Antero in the Pike & San Isabel NFs- Alpine and Subalpine Climate Refugia Connectivity — The area spans from 13,600 feet to 14,276 feet across multiple subalpine and alpine ecosystem types—Rocky Mountain subalpine spruce-fir forest, alpine tundra, and bristlecone pine woodland—creating an intact elevational gradient that allows species to shift their ranges as climate conditions change. This vertical connectivity is critical as warming temperatures push suitable habitat upslope; species dependent on cool conditions can only persist if they can move continuously to higher elevations without fragmentation. Road construction fragments this gradient by creating edge effects, altering microclimate through canopy removal, and introducing invasive species along disturbed corridors, which would trap populations in lower-elevation refugia that are becoming increasingly unsuitable. DEIS Narrative Exceeds the 150-Page Statutory Limit With No Extraordinary-Complexity Determination on the Record The Draft EIS exceeds the statutory page limit and contains no determination authorizing it to do so. Volume I of the Draft EIS is 333 pages. Its narrative text runs from the Introduction at page 9 through page 248. References Cited occupies pages 249 through 285, and the List of Appendices and Appendices 1 through 5 occupy pages 286 through 333. Excluding citations and appendices, as the statute directs, the environmental impact statement is therefore approximately 240 pages long. The applicable limit is 150 pages. 42 U.S.C. 4336a, enacted by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, limits an environmental impact statement to 150 pages excluding citations and appendices, and permits 300 pages only where the proposed agency action is of extraordinary complexity. USDA's NEPA procedures implement the same limits at 7 CFR 1b.7(a) and (i). The Draft EIS expressly adopts those procedures, stating at page 9 that the Forest Service "has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations," and that "all references to 7 CFR 1b within this document refer to the interim rule." The document therefore exceeds the 150-page limit by approximately 90 pages. The only lawful basis for an environmental impact statement of this length is a determination that the proposed action is of extraordinary complexity. Volume I contains no such determination. The phrases "extraordinary complexity," "page limit," and "Fiscal Responsibility Act" do not appear anywhere in the document, and 42 U.S.C. 4336a is cited nowhere in it. The Draft EIS asserts compliance with "other relevant laws and regulations" while exceeding the one quantitative constraint those laws place on the document itself, and without invoking the exception that would authorize the excess. This is not a matter of formatting. The page limit operates together with 7 CFR 1b.7(i), which directs that issues not of a substantive nature receive the briefest possible discussion. A ceiling of 150 pages applied to a rescission affecting approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands compels the agency to compress its effects analysis, and the extent of that compression depends directly on which ceiling the responsible official was working to. A document written to 150 pages must omit substantially more analysis than one written to 300. The public reading this Draft EIS cannot tell which constraint shaped it, because the document never says - and the difference is roughly 90 pages of effects analysis across 44.7 million acres. I request that the responsible official make and document the extraordinary-complexity determination required by 42 U.S.C. 4336a and 7 CFR 1b.7(a) as the predicate for a Final EIS exceeding 150 pages, or, if no such determination is made, that the Final EIS text comply with the 150-page limit. Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3), the response to this comment should cite where in the Final EIS or the supporting proposal record that determination is accounted for. A rule that has survived twenty-five years, multiple administrations, and repeated judicial review deserves more deference than this. CommentID: RLC-20261006-9WBQV3

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Backpacking and hiking through places like Pyramid in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Paiute roadless area in Inyo National Forest to commune with nature, watch birds, and observe wildlife, I have come to understand what these landscapes hold. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that at risk, and the agency's own analysis does not support the step it is proposing to take. I am an avid backpacker and day hiker who lives in Northern California. I have travelled all over the United States to hike and backpack. The impact of roads and off road vehicles on wildlife, the land and the experience being in the “wilderness” is obvious and depressing. Bird watching is not incidental to why I go into roadless areas. It is a central reason. The agency's own record, drawing on research the DEIS cites, documents that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. California already holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and the birds I go to find depend on the quiet and the unbroken canopy those areas provide. Opening that landscape to road-building does not simply alter the scenery. It restructures the acoustic and ecological conditions that determine whether those species stay or go. I ask the agency to explain, with specificity, how the benefits it claims from rescission can be weighed against documented declines in bird abundance and species presence that its own cited science predicts. The wildfire rationale the agency offers for this rescission conflicts directly with what its own record says. The DEIS 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 DEIS further reports human-caused ignition density of 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas, and states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The agency must explain why its proposal departs from these findings, reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, and quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access weighed against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. The regulatory flexibility certification also cannot stand as written. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities while its own DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification is reached by spreading expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the guides and outfitters holding permits in the specific affected areas. The agency concedes some firms may lose those receipts. It should withdraw the certification and assess impact on the small entities actually operating in and permitted for the potentially affected roadless areas. The Chugach National Forest in Alaska is the most roadless national forest in the entire system. Ninety-nine percent of it has never had a road built through it. It holds 40 inventoried roadless areas totaling 5,439,110 acres. The Copper River Delta within it hosts the largest concentration of shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere during spring migration, including western sandpiper in the millions. Bald eagles, trumpeter swans, brown bear, moose, and mountain goat depend on this landscape at a scale that exists nowhere else in the national forest system. The 2001 rule is the structural protection that has kept those conditions intact. A state-petition process substituted for a national rule creates no guarantee that protection continues, and the agency's own record does not model what happens to that ecosystem if the rule falls. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. My years of hiking, birding, and backpacking in California's roadless areas, and my expectation that federal policy would continue to protect them, are exactly the kind of reliance interests the agency invited and then declined to assess. The agency must identify and weigh those interests as part of this proceeding, including what this comment represents. Sincerely, Kristen Sorensen Petaluma, CA

I writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1: Status Quo/No Action in your final ruling on the proposed Roadless Rule Rescission. There are many compelling reasons to oppose the rescission. I’ll list just a few of them, focusing on ones that are particularly pertinent in Montana, which is where I live. I’m sure that you’re hearing about most of these from other folks, so I don’t think there’s a great deal of need for me to go on and on. The public is opposed—overwhelmingly so—to removing protections for roadless areas. More than 99% of responses received thus far are against the rescission of the Roadless Rule. Even amongst folks who can’t be bothered with writing letters, support for Roadless Areas has been around 76%. These are public lands we’re talking about, and how the public would like to see them used ought to weigh heavily in the decision-making process. Municipal Watersheds will be degraded. Building more roads in our National Forests will increase erosion, which will add to run-off and water purification costs. More than a third of Montanan’s water comes directly from or is downstream of roadless areas. Wildlife habitat will be further fragmented. I’m lucky enough to make my home in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (outside Livingston, MT), which is “the most intact temperate ecosystem in the world,” according to wildlife biologist Doug Smith. Removing the roadless buffer along the edges of this ecosystem will harm wildlife habitat if/when extractive industries move in. The Greater Yellowstone area draws visitors from around the world and has been studied and written about by many. We need more protections—not fewer—for an ecosystem as important as this one. Recreation Economy. Tourism is a big deal Montana, supporting 1 in 11 jobs. Outdoor recreation is also important to Montana residents, making up 4.9 percent of Montana’s GDP. 5.9 of Montanans work in fields related to outdoors recreation. Much of this recreation takes place on public lands that are easily accessible from cities and towns, and these places often include IRAs. It seems unlikely that the extractive industries enabled by rescinding roadless protections will provide a net gain for Montana’s economy, since tourism and outdoor recreation would likely suffer. Maintenance Backlog for Existing Forests Service Roads. If we can’t take care of the ones we already have, we probably don’t need more. Enough said. Private Inholding Access. This is a big one, especially for those of us who live near or like to recreate in the Crazy Mountains. The Crazy Mountains are made up of “checkerboard” public and private land ownership, though some sections (not the right ones, in my opinion) were consolidated a couple of years ago. Most of the checkerboard is currently within the Crazy Mountain IRA. If roadless protections are removed, it will be easier for owners of private inholdings to petition for permission to build a road to their property. These roads would fragment wildlife habit, disrupt public recreation, and have a negative impact on tribal resources. The boon this would provide for owners of formerly difficult-to-access private inholdings is substantial, and casts new light on the checkerboard consolidation deal brokered by the Yellowstone Club in 2025. Wildfire Reduction. This is one of the primary reasons given by the Forest Service for its need to rescind the Roadless Rule. However, scientific evidence does not support the building of roads as a way of reducing wildfire risk—in fact, human caused ignitions in Montana are more than 8 times higher within 100 yards of a road than they are on more remote forest service land. I live a couple of miles from an IRA that runs along the northern edge of Absarokas, and the wildfires we’d had in this area since I’ve lived here tended to be fought by air. Some ignitions occurred on private property (often, a vehicle was involved), others were caused by lightning strikes, but the outcome was the same: the sky was abuzz. At times, firefighters were dropped into wilderness areas to fight fire on the ground—but roads provided little in the way of meaningful firefighting access. Plus, there’s enough wiggle room in the current Roadless Rule to allow for forest thinning and controlled burns in the WUI. Though it will never be perfect, I believe that the Roadless Rule and wildfire protection for our towns and neighborhoods in the urban interface can successfully coexist. Thanks for hearing me out. There’s plenty more I could say, but I believe I’ve gone on for long enough. I hope you make a decision that serves the general public, not a select few. Please go with Alternative 1. The other options serve neither our forests nor the people who love them.

I oppose the proposal to fully and partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As someone who lives in the Tongass National Forest rescinding the Roadless Rule will greatly negatively impact thousands and that’s just here in Alaska! Rescinding the Roadless Rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk. In fact, it's likely to increase it. - "The proportion of human-caused fires in Roadless areas is less than half. on other NFS lands, which may be due in part to public access limitations. The incidence of human-caused fires generally increases with proximity to roads." (pg 86; see Aplet et al. 2026) USFS doesn't have the budget to maintain their existing road infrastructure, much less new ones. - Costs for maintaining roads = $5,000-$50,000 / mile. Costs for building new roads = $80,000 - $2 million / mile, depending on if the road is dirt, gravel, or asphault. (pg 42) - The Forest Service has a $7 billion deferred maintenance backlog, and an estimated $1.6 billion is needed annually to maintain existing roadways. In 2023, the USFS received <20% of this amount for road maintenance. (pg 42) - Less than 30% of NFS roads are in 'good condition' (pg 40) - The DEIS states "...revenue generated by timber sales or other resource extraction activities would be used for some road-related system management but not be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining all new roads related to a project." (pg 45) These are just a couple examples of the many why rescinding the Roadless Rule is shortsighted and reckless. The decisions of what happens to our public lands are most often made by those who will never be impacted by their actions and the communities who rely on our public lands. Destroying our forests and public lands for short term gains will be irreversible. Please stop this madness. Concerned Juneau and Tongass National Forest resident.

I heavily oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would result in the destruction of America's public lands. It would undermine the protections we have in place for these forests, clean water, and wildlife refuges. And, it would severely impact recreational opportunities that enrich the lives of millions of Americans. As an American who takes great pride in the beauty of nature we have managed to protect thus far, I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative and retain full Roadless Rule protections. My name is Dawson Autry and I live in The Colony, Texas. While this rule does not affect my daily life at home, it does affect millions of Americans, trees, and wildlife who depend on the areas that this rule protects. These areas have countless benefits and reasons to keep them protected under federal roadless rule, whether it be protection of clean drinking water, protection of animal habitats, economic benefits from tourism, or improved mental health benefits by providing recreational forested areas. The pride that the American people have in a government that protects its forests cannot be understated. These are areas I travel to often to visit in Washington, Oregon, and California. There are many more states, parks, and forests I wish to visit in my lifetime, precisely because they are protected and cared for by rules like the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I sincerely hope that my children and all future generations of Americans would get that same opportunity. Short term benefits are not worth sacrificing these areas for, these areas must be protected with everything we have. On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service promulgated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244) at 36 CFR 294 Subpart B to provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System. The stated "Rationale for the Proposal" does not at all adequately install proper protections for these areas in equal to what the Roadless Area Conservation Rule provides at a federal level. To quantify a single case, under the agency’s proposal, Alternative 2 would eliminate protections for nearly 2 million acres of wild, public lands in Oregon. Under Alternative 3, 1.4 million acres (nearly 75% of IRA acres in Oregon) would lose protections. That is one state losing protection for over 1 million acres. When you widen the impact of removing this rule to other states as well, the impact is truly massive and truly horrifying. The Summary of Potential Impacts section states some benefits to the removal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rules. Namely, items such as: 1. "Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would increase opportunities for hazardous fuel treatments in the wildland-urban interface, where 9.8 million acres (or 24 percent) overlap with inventoried roadless areas, and, where justified, would allow strategically placed roads that can improve suppression effectiveness near communities and critical infrastructure." 2. "This expansion could increase road-based recreation and accessibility improvements..." 3. "Management Flexibility" 4. Economic gains like increased timber and "access for minerals or energy uses" While I can understand that there may have been some good intention behind the proposal, I want to stress the importance that the broad removal of a federal protection is not the way to achieve these goals. Loss of federal protection will simply result in the gradual erasure of the 18.2 million acres that this rule protects. That is natural land that will either be sold away to corporations or cut-through and paved over with roads. That is natural land that America and the wildlife who inhabited it will never get back. Your proposal has already mentioned several of the environmental and economic impacts that the removal of this rule can cause. It also places a price on these impacts. I urge you to look beyond the bottom line and the immediate price these actions may cause, because the ramifications of removing protections on such a broad scale are much, much greater, and the effects will be felt each and every year from the day they are removed. This is an action that will affect all future generations of Americans. By removing this rule, we would potentially be sacrificing their futures to enjoy the beautiful lands of the United States of America. America is beautiful and deserves to be protected. Once again I strongly urge you to reconsider. Fully or partially removing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The humpback whales we watched around Baranof Island brought me to this fight. I want those waters protected, and I want to know exactly how logging the Port Alexander and North Baranof roadless areas, covering 120,681 acres and 314,089 acres respectively in the Tongass National Forest, will affect the humpback whales who frequent those waters. The Tongass is the largest intact temperate rainforest left on Earth, holding over 12,930 miles of salmon-producing streams. Executive Order 14153 directs the agency to expressly exclude the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule, and the Federal Register rescission notice says so in writing. Under both action alternatives the Tongass keeps zero acres of roadless protection. I oppose that outcome completely. I also paddle parts of the Teanaway River, which flows through the Teanaway roadless area in Wenatchee National Forest. Washington holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Washington State is currently in the fourth consecutive year of drought and in a drought emergency. Our rivers have remained free flowing. How will rescission affect the volume of water and sediment load in the Naches, Tieton, and Yakima rivers and all their tributaries on the east side of the Cascades? Removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures beyond what suits cold-water species, and warmer temperatures can reduce egg survival, rearing densities and growth of coho salmon, in habitat the DEIS identifies as Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitat managed by NMFS. I want to know what the effect on local salmon runs will be, and I ask the agency to answer that question squarely in the final record. We have visited Hyder, Alaska the last two summers and enjoyed watching the bears fishing at the USFS Fish Creek Wildlife Observation Site. The DEIS quotes the federal grizzly recovery plan directly: the increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. How will rescission affect the number of bears and salmon that come to that observation site? The agency must address this. The national forests of Washington state already show scars from previous National Forest roads that remain in place, many of those roads receiving no maintenance. The agency is already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it has, against a road budget of about $73 million a year. What will happen to the service level on current National Forest roads if the roadless rule is repealed and additional roads are built? How much will that cost taxpayers? The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with its own economic analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and that it explain how an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying that backlog. The agency's own record also 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 proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds. Those two positions cannot both be right. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. Finally, The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it takes any final action. Sincerely, Margaret Van Cleve Selah, WA

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 We are already seeing what happens when we use too many resources. Let's back off taking from the earth for awhile. Water from national forest country in the Pacific Southwest Region reaches as many as 2,264,400 people downstream, by the agency's own data. My tap may be one of them. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The substance of round one is never answered I commented in the first round, and I have read what the agency says it did with everything we sent. Its own account describes counting, not answering: By the agency's own count, over 220,000 comment letters were received, representing over 625,000 submissions, and approximately 99 percent were generally opposed to the rescission. The DEIS says the comments helped inform the alternatives and identifies no issue that changed anything. Counting comments is not responding to them. I ask that the agency state which substantive issues from the first comment period altered the proposal, and which were rejected and why. Issue 2: Tribal consultation is incomplete and its summary is withheld from comment I commented in the first round and waited to be heard. By the agency's own record, others owed a far more formal hearing are still waiting too: The Forest Service received 64 requests for Tribal consultation; 29 consultations have been held and 5 more scheduled, with the published Tribal Summary Impact Statement records that the majority sentiment among consulted Tribal governments is opposition, viewing the rescission as a threat to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival and the ecological health of ancestral homelands; the final Tribal Impact Summary Statement is deferred to the final rule. Tribal governments proposed alternatives, including a strengthened roadless rule and a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule, and none was analysed; the final impact statement arrives only when comment is closed. I ask that the agency complete all 64 requested consultations and publish the Tribal Impact Summary Statement for public comment before any final rule. Issue 3: Every conservation alternative was eliminated by how the purpose was written I took the time to comment before, and I expected the alternatives to reflect what the public asked for. The agency's own document shows how it wrote every protective option out of consideration: Alternatives with more protection were dismissed as not responsive to the deregulatory executive orders, and the keep-boundaries option was cut because it "would continue to restrict local decision-making discretion" and because analysing roadless values is "an administrative and legal burden for the agency." A purpose written as deregulation forecloses the comparison NEPA requires. I ask that the agency restate the purpose and need in terms of forest conditions and analyse at least one protective alternative in full. Issue 4: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed How this reaches me is stated above in my own words, and that is a reliance interest. The agency asked for exactly this and then weighed none of it: The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Brenna Geehan San Francisco, CA

Re: Docket FS-2025-0001 — Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule and make targeted improvements to it, rather than rescinding it. I support fiscal discipline, active wildfire management, and responsible use of public resources. A full rescission works against all three. It would add costs for taxpayers and take something valuable from sportsmen and rural communities. 1. Fiscal responsibility: The Forest Service already has an estimated $6.9 billion backlog in road and bridge maintenance. Every new mile of backcountry road becomes a permanent liability on the federal balance sheet. Taxpayers should not be asked to pay for new roads when the agency cannot maintain the ones it has. The agency's own analysis finds only about 4.8 million acres where timber operations would be both allowed and physically feasible. That is a small share of the roughly 45 million acres affected, so the economic return does not justify the cost. 2. The rule is not what's stopping wildfire work. The agency's own management records show that fuel treatments in roadless areas have been carried out at a higher rate per square kilometer than elsewhere in the National Forest System. Research covering three decades of data found that wildfire ignitions are least dense in roadless and wilderness areas. Areas within about 160 feet of a road see up to four times as many ignitions, mostly from human causes. Mitigation dollars do the most good near homes and communities, not in remote backcountry. If you want to address wildfire risk, increase funding to the Forest Service. 3. Hunting and fishing heritage: Roadless areas hold some of the best big-game habitat left in the country. About 58% of them overlap elk habitat, and about 70% hold native trout or salmon. The hunters and anglers who use these areas bring steady revenue to gateway towns across the West, and that revenue depends on secure, undisturbed habitat. Sportsmen's groups such as Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Trout Unlimited have urged USDA to keep the rule. As an Idaho resident, hunting and fishing access are important to me personally, but also to ours state's economy in the form of tourism. People come here to see pristine, undisturbed areas and hunt game that require undisturbed habitat. 4. Clean water for local communities. Roadless areas protect the headwaters of 354 municipal watersheds. For many small towns, intact forest is the cheapest water treatment available. If that protection is lost, local ratepayers will face treatment costs they cannot easily absorb. And it will be mostly rural, low-resource communities that feel this most. 5. National forests are owned by all Americans: the hunter in Idaho, the angler in Ohio, and the rancher in Montana alike. Decisions about their most intact backcountry should not depend on whoever has the most influence in a given planning cycle or statehouse. The 2001 rule was adopted after more than 600 public meetings and 1.6 million public comments. It has given land users, businesses, and communities 25 years of predictable rules. Rescinding it would replace that certainty with forest-by-forest decisions that can change with every plan revision, and with years of costly litigation. I respectfully ask USDA to withdraw the proposed rescission. Instead, the agency could clarify and streamline the rule's existing exceptions for fuels reduction and wildfire response, and increase funding to the Forest Service to better manage and protect these lands. That would deliver the management flexibility the agency is seeking while keeping America's best remaining backcountry intact for the public that owns it.

I heavily oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would result in the destruction of America's public lands. It would undermine the protections we have in place for these forests, clean water, and wildlife refuges. And, it would severely impact recreational opportunities that enrich the lives of millions of Americans. As an American who takes great pride in the beauty of nature we have managed to protect thus far, I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative and retain full Roadless Rule protections. I live in The Colony, Texas. While this rule does not affect my daily life at home, it does affect millions of Americans, trees, and wildlife who depend on the areas that this rule protects. These areas have countless benefits and reasons to keep them protected under federal roadless rule, whether it be protection of clean drinking water, protection of animal habitats, economic benefits from tourism, or improved mental health benefits by providing recreational forested areas. The pride that the American people have in a government that protects its forests cannot be understated. These are areas I travel to often to visit in Washington, Oregon, and California. There are many more states, parks, and forests I wish to visit in my lifetime, precisely because they are protected and cared for by rules like the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I sincerely hope that my children and all future generations of Americans would get that same opportunity. Short term benefits are not worth sacrificing these areas for, these areas must be protected with everything we have. On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service promulgated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244) at 36 CFR 294 Subpart B to provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System. The stated "Rationale for the Proposal" does not at all adequately install proper protections for these areas in equal to what the Roadless Area Conservation Rule provides at a federal level. To quantify a single case, under the agency’s proposal, Alternative 2 would eliminate protections for nearly 2 million acres of wild, public lands in Oregon. Under Alternative 3, 1.4 million acres (nearly 75% of IRA acres in Oregon) would lose protections. That is one state losing protection for over 1 million acres. When you widen the impact of removing this rule to other states as well, the impact is truly massive and truly horrifying. The Summary of Potential Impacts section states some benefits to the removal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rules. Namely, items such as: 1. "Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would increase opportunities for hazardous fuel treatments in the wildland-urban interface, where 9.8 million acres (or 24 percent) overlap with inventoried roadless areas, and, where justified, would allow strategically placed roads that can improve suppression effectiveness near communities and critical infrastructure." 2. "This expansion could increase road-based recreation and accessibility improvements..." 3. "Management Flexibility" 4. Economic gains like increased timber and "access for minerals or energy uses" While I can understand that there may have been some good intention behind the proposal, I want to stress the importance that the broad removal of a federal protection is not the way to achieve these goals. Loss of federal protection will simply result in the gradual erasure of the 18.2 million acres that this rule protects. That is natural land that will either be sold away to corporations or cut-through and paved over with roads. That is natural land that America and the wildlife who inhabited it will never get back. Your proposal has already mentioned several of the environmental and economic impacts that the removal of this rule can cause. It also places a price on these impacts. I urge you to look beyond the bottom line and the immediate price these actions may cause, because the ramifications of removing protections on such a broad scale are much, much greater, and the effects will be felt each and every year from the day they are removed. This is an action that will affect all future generations of Americans. By removing this rule, we would potentially be sacrificing their futures to enjoy the beautiful lands of the United States of America. America is beautiful and deserves to be protected. Once again I strongly urge you to reconsider. Fully or partially removing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (the Roadless Rule). I am a resident of Western North Carolina (WNC) where we are privileged to have many rare and wonderful species of plants and animals and pristine natural areas. The rescission of the Roadless Rule would negatively impact humans, plants, and animals in WNC. The Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests are home to many unique and sensitive species of plants and animals. The EPA reports that a preliminary biological assessment found the rescission of the Roadless Rule is likely to adversely affect 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats. One item this administration is championing as a positive reason to rescind the Roadless Rule is mitigation of wildfires. However, findings contradict the need for more roads to mitigate a perceived wildfire threat. The Purpose and Need argues that the 2001 Roadless Rule limited vegetation management and contributed to forest-health problems, but the agency's own Fire and Fuels Management chapter cites research finding that the Roadless Rule did not meaningfully constrain hazardous fuel treatment activities when measured as a share of forested land treated. The document's own cited evidence contradicts the central justification offered for rescinding the rule. The agency’s findings showed, “the 2001 Roadless Rule did not meaningfully constrain hazardous fuel treatment activities when considering the number and area of treatments” (Hazardous Fuel Reduction). In closing, for the reasons I have discussed, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would not benefit humans by reducing wildfires and would negatively affect plants and animals important to Western North Carolina. Thank you for your time. A Citizen of Watauga County, North Carolina

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is, as far as I can tell, purely about removing regulatory burden. It does not promise road development. It does not promise logging. It simply strips away protection from some of the last remaining old growth forestland in the world, for no reason the agency has made plain. This is old growth. It takes centuries to even approach that designation. Reforestation efforts across the world today pale in comparison to what true old growth forest represents. If roads go in and that land is destroyed, nothing like it may never be able to grace the earth again. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million public comments to put this rule in place. To undo something so substantial without a single comparable public process is, to me, a mistake. I ask that the agency explain what process it believes substitutes for that record of public participation, and why rescission of a rule built on 1.6 million comments requires none of its own. On water, the agency's own data shows that 24 million Americans drink water that originates in these roadless areas. Roads are known to cause contamination in the areas where they are built. The agency's own analysis confirms this directly, finding that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Rescinding this rule opens those watersheds to exactly that kind of harm, affecting the drinking water of millions of Americans with little to no real benefit. I ask the agency to explain on the record what specific, quantified benefit justifies that risk to public water supplies. On wildfire, the proposal invokes forest health and fuels management as justification for rescission. The agency's own record says the opposite: "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 proposal offers no reconciliation with that finding. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. On the state-by-state approach, the agency has already traveled this road and lost. The record reflects that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." Courts rejected that state-by-state substitute before. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last tried to replace the national rule with state petitions. On statutory authority, the proposal argues the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress authorized. A federal appellate court already answered that question: "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 Tenth Circuit held the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must explain on the record the basis for any position to the contrary. Finally, on administrative burden, the rule as written already contains exceptions, including for "the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The agency has not identified which specific burdens those exceptions fail to address. It must do so, with quantification, before rescission can stand as a proportionate response to any genuine operational difficulty. Future generations deserve to have this land, to experience the beauty the world has to offer, and we are discussing potentially opening the door to take that away.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The quiet found in backcountry areas is not available anywhere near roads and human development. I have hiked and camped in many such places, and I know that feeling of time slowing down, that grounded, peaceful quality that simply does not exist where roads are found. Each backcountry location is incredibly unique in so many ways, and each one we have matters for that variety, for the ecosystems found there, and for ourselves and our children's children to be able to experience. The proposal before the agency would put all of that at risk, and the agency's own record makes a poor case for doing so. Start with fire. The agency's own findings state that "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 proposal nevertheless justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds. The agency needs to explain, in plain terms, why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and how it reconciles the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics do not hold up either. The record acknowledges that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Those are small numbers to set against significant permanent losses. The agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. That range does not establish a net benefit. Meanwhile, the road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does an action whose own analysis cannot demonstrate a net positive outcome justify enlarging that liability? The agency has also been down this road before. The record quotes the agency itself expressing dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and rejecting its "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach." 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. That dissatisfaction led to a state-by-state replacement, and the Ninth Circuit struck it down. The proposal moves in the same direction again. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and it must explain how this proposal avoids the specific legal deficiencies identified the last time it tried to substitute state processes for one national rule. Finally, the existing rule already accommodates a range of management needs. It "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The exceptions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already in the text. The agency claims administrative burden justifies rescission, but it has not shown which specific burdens those exceptions fail to address. It should identify them, by category, and quantify them before going further. The places I am writing about are irreplaceable. That variety of ecosystems, that quiet, that slow-down feeling, once a road cuts through it, it does not come back. The agency has not made a factual, legal, or economic case sufficient to justify this rescission, and I urge it to withdraw it. Kristen Portland, Oregon

Clean water matters to me, my kids deserve these vast beautiful lands, and I want to know how my tax money is being spent before it goes to something like this. The agency's fire safety argument does not hold up under its own numbers. The document states, at the Fire Control section, that "With increased road access, initial attack success rates would be expected to increase." But no analysis isolates roads as the cause of any difference in outcomes. The document itself acknowledges that less-than-full suppression is used more often in roadless areas, which makes any direct comparison of initial attack success rates unreliable without controlling for suppression strategy. It also concedes that most new roads expected under rescission would be temporary timber spurs, not strategic fire roads. The agency needs to separate the effect of roads from suppression strategy in its initial attack comparison, and estimate how many fire-useful roads are actually expected given real funding limits. I want a clear answer to that specific question before this rule moves forward. The agency also cannot have it both ways on irreversible harm. The Scope of the Analysis section declares that "An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources will not be made by the rulemaking because none of the rulemaking alternatives propose specific actions," yet the same document discloses that rescission is likely to adversely affect 327 ESA-listed species and 71 critical habitats, and that permanent road construction and old-growth removal are reasonably foreseeable. Those are exactly the kinds of irreversible commitments the disclaimer purports to rule out. The Forest Service must reconcile that contradiction directly. This is a horrible priority when we need healthcare, affordable housing, food, and so many other essential services. Do you want kids to grow up without these vast beautiful lands? I don't. The agency should explain, on the record, why rescinding nationwide protections serves the public better than keeping them.

I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS), the Rationale for the Proposed Rule is to reinstate “….important management tools for key areas where there are needs or opportunities to address overgrown and fuel-loaded national forests.” Essentially, repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule will allow the construction of roads to facilitate management of overgrown and fuel-loaded national forests. However, the Department’s own analysis indicates that it will have the opposite effect. Page 85 of the DEIS states that “Past research and new analyses presented here indicate that more fires, both in absolute numbers and density, originate on other NFS lands compared to IRAs and wilderness areas. The DEIS goes on to state that “The proportion of human-caused fires in IRAs and wilderness is less than half that on other NFS lands, which may be due in part to public access limitations. The incidence of human-caused fires generally increases with proximity to roads.” Furthermore, the DEIS states that “the new analysis presented in this DEIS indicates that other NFS lands also have about twice the density of natural ignitions than IRAs or wilderness, potentially due to biophysical differences or higher detection rates. The number of “actionable” and reportable wildfires may also be generally greater in areas outside of roadless or wilderness areas.” The DEIS fails to analyze the economic benefits and reduced negative impacts of focusing management actions on “other NFS lands” compared to IRAs and wilderness area. As stated on page 26 of the DEIS, “Alternatives analyzed in detail must be technically and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need (NEPA section 102 (2 (c)(iii)), 7 CFR 1b.7(h)). Analyzing increased management of “other NFS lands” is technically and economically feasible and meets the purpose and need of “reducing regulatory burden” and providing “management flexibility”. For these reasons, I believe the Department has failed to comply with NEPA, and the 2001 Roadless Rule should remain in place until an additional alternative (increased management of other NFS lands) is fully analyzed. Sincerely, Jeff Stephens OR

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Fishing lakes, rivers, creeks, and streams without roads cutting through the surrounding land is one of the few remaining privileges available to people willing to make the trek. That is not a small thing. The ecosystems and habitats that support the life in those waters only hold together because human intrusion has been limited. To continuously push the development of infrastructure where it is not needed will lead to the devastation of it all entirely. I hike and camp for the same reason: to experience wildlife as it is, to disconnect, to encounter nature without extreme human intrusion. A large majority of this country has already been developed for commercial, agricultural, and residential use. What remains unroaded and intact should stay that way. I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full and ask the agency to answer the specific questions raised below. The agency justifies this proposal in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own record contradicts that justification. The agency found that "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." Opening more roadless acres to road construction under that finding is not a fire management strategy. I ask the agency to explain how the proposal departs from those prior findings and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which the record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency's own analysis shows that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against those marginal gains, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from this action, yet it proposes to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must explain, in plain terms, how that arithmetic supports rescission. The agency also argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. But the agency's own record acknowledges that it "discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The last time the agency substituted local decision-making for the national rule, the Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies, and it has not addressed its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. A clear answer to both points is required. Finally, the proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. That question has already been litigated. A federal appellate court reviewed the challenge to the rule and held, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, that it would "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 Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency needs to state plainly what basis it has for a contrary position, given that a federal court has already ruled on this question. This land was meant to remain untouched and preserved. Preserving the national forests for their ecosystems and wildlife is just as important as any commercial use. The agency should answer each of these points in the final record before any action on this proposal is taken. Sincerely, Mary Landaberde Groveland, Florida

Dear Joshua White, Hi my name is Greta Healy and I live in Southeast Alaska. My favorite places in Southeast are the old growth forests. Old, massive trees, mossy forest floors, quiet serene places. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. I live in a town where logging roads have totally changed the forests. The woods that have been logged are dense and the undergrowth is impossible to walk through. Small trees that were undesirable for selling still were cut down but instead of being hauled out they were left in place. Walking through a second growth forest is not conducive to recreating and diminishes habitat for wild animals. I fear more roads and logging will further impact ecosystems that our wildlife depend on. Lets use roads we already have. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. A strong future for Alaska would involve investing in ecotourism. Getting people into these wild places with the goal being to appreciate nature. Not extraction. Extraction is unsustainable and eventually will end. Once the trees are gone the logging *money* will go away- yet the roads and the people who love this wild place will still exist and will once again need to figure out how to survive. Why not figure that out now. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Southeast Alaskans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Greta Healy

Dear Joshua White, I am a person of faith who cares about protecting the Pacific Northwest fishery, clean water and old-growth and legacy forests. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. Increased road building may increase human incursion into areas prone to wildfire. Mining will pollute pristine waters that support the Alaskan fishery. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. I would like the Forest Service to protect watershed integrity and intact ecosystems in the vast and beautiful northern forest. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Southeast Alaskans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Kathleen D Delbecq

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas of western Montana are the foundation of the outdoor life I value. Hiking, rafting, camping, hunting, fishing, and skiing in these places matters to me, and so does the wildlife that depends on them, including the birds that rely on intact, unroaded habitat to survive. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask this agency to answer, in writing, the questions its own analysis leaves open. Start with fire. The agency justifies this rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet its own draft environmental impact statement 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." That sentence is in the agency's own record. DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask the agency to explain, in plain terms, why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in that table. Montana holds 235 inventoried roadless areas totaling 6,395,392 acres. These are not abstract figures. These acres produce habitat for the birds and wildlife I described, and they sit inside watersheds that serve 1,287 municipal water intakes across the Northern region. The birds I look for in these places depend on the continuity of that habitat. The agency's own DEIS cites the finding that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The DEIS also cites the finding that "habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent." That range appears in the document and then disappears. No projection applies it to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. I ask that the agency close that gap: apply the cited fragmentation range to the full affected acreage and show what it means for bird communities and other wildlife in Montana and beyond. The same omission appears when it comes to hunting. The DEIS cites the finding that "elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat." Trails near Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas in western Montana are places where these dynamics are real, not theoretical. Yet nowhere in the document does the agency project what road-building and increased access would do to elk populations or hunter opportunity at any scale. The agency should provide that projection. Carbon storage is raised and then set aside. The DEIS cites the estimate that "these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons." The document then concludes that these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of what harvest and roading under any alternative would actually change. Roughly 0.9 billion metric tons is not a number that can be mentioned and ignored. The agency must quantify the projected change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative before this rulemaking moves forward. Protection of these places is critical. The intact ecosystems of western Montana, the trails adjacent to Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas, the birds and wildlife that use them, all of this is at stake. The agency's own data on fire ignition, fragmentation, elk behavior and carbon storage each point in the same direction, and none of it is reconciled with the decision to rescind the rule. I ask that the agency treat these gaps as the serious analytical failures they are and address each of them fully in any final record of decision. Sincerely, Carla Belski Whitefish, MT

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Roadless areas are very important to me. I could speak to generally how they help create more diverse and wild landscapes everywhere not just in their vicinity. The United States actually still has wild places unlike many other countries. But I will speak to my specific experience within Deep Creek Roadless Area. I hike there for the last 10 years every year. I love how I can not hear vehicles. I would be heartbroken if this place did not exist or if it was destroyed. To even build a single road in this area I am sure would destroy a lot. The waters in the creek are so clean and the hot springs so delicately placed near the creek. All that would be polluted with run off if roads were built. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about Deep Creek (23,869 acres), San Bernardino National Forest, California. I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it I photograph trees, and my work is part of the recreation economy this document weighs. The agency certifies no impact while the analysis beside it says otherwise: The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and concedes some firms may lose these receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Issue 2: Foreseeable plan amendments are placed beyond scope I photograph landscapes, and every frame depends on what the management plans allow next. The agency concedes where this leads and then declares it out of scope: The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830). The agency is asking commenters to perform the analysis it declared out of scope. I ask that the agency analyse the foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including expanded timber harvest area, as part of this action. Issue 3: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I photograph wildlife, and years of that work are built on these protections holding. That is a reliance interest, and the agency invited me to name it: The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Issue 4: The agency's own fire data cuts against the proposal I hike and camp in this country, and fire shapes every trip I plan. If the agency's own data ties ignitions to road access, I want that weighed honestly. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Katherine Bauer Corona Del Mar, California