Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I am an avid outdoor photography who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. I STRONGLY oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This is a reckless action that would public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Wildfires 4x more likely to start near roads than in roadless forests Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Lynn Robb Santa Monica, CA 90405-5804 lynn.robb@verizon.net

FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT — PROPOSED RESCISSION OF 2001 ROADLESS RULE Docket Number: 2026-18648 October 6, 2026 TO THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: I, Lionel P. Trepanier (lioneltrepanier@gmail.com, Palm Desert, CA 92211), submit this comment in strong opposition to rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a 25-year participant in Forest Service rulemaking, having submitted comments on 100+ USFS projects including the Roadless Rule and Spotted Owl EIS. VIOLATION OF LAW This rescission violates the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Federal Indian Law on multiple independent grounds: 1. APA VIOLATION—Arbitrary and Capricious: The agency's own Draft EIS states: "Road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as density of roads increases so does probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions." The proposed rescission contradicts this by authorizing new roads to mitigate wildfire risk. This is arbitrary and capricious disregard of agency's own science in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 2. FISCAL IRRATIONALITY: USFS deferred maintenance backlog exceeds $8.6-10.8 billion, with $6.4-6.9 billion tied to 370,000 miles of existing roads built 60+ years ago. Proposing new road construction while systematically underfunding existing infrastructure violates APA rational basis requirements. 3. PROCEDURAL INADEQUACY: Comment period is 53 days total (21 initial + 32 days). Original 2001 Roadless Rule: 129 days + 600 meetings. 2005 Bush rescission attempt: 182 days. This truncated process violates APA's requirement for meaningful public participation. 99% of initial public comments opposed rescission. 4. NEPA VIOLATION: DEIS fails to adequately analyze cumulative environmental impacts on 58.5 million acres, including degradation of municipal watersheds, loss of carbon sinks, habitat fragmentation, salmon spawning habitat destruction, and old-growth ecosystem loss. Fails hard-look review under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983). 5. ESA VIOLATION: Sweeping rescission across ranges of threatened/endangered species (marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, salmon populations) without completed ESA Section 7 consultations violates 16 U.S.C. § 1536. Grounds for injunctive relief. 6. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW VIOLATION: Rescission breaches federal trust responsibility to tribes, violates Executive Order 13175 requiring government-to-government consultation, and endangers treaty-protected hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ancestral lands. Industrial roadbuilding violates federal obligations to sovereign tribes. DEMAND I demand the Forest Service: - WITHDRAW the proposed rescission immediately - MAINTAIN the 2001 Roadless Rule in entirety - COMPLETE mandatory ESA Section 7 consultations - Provide 120-day comment period for any future rulemaking The 2001 Roadless Rule—enacted with broad bipartisan support and defended by federal courts—represents 25 years of successful policy protecting one-third of undeveloped National Forest System lands. This unlawful rescission will be challenged vigorously in federal court. A comprehensive detailed comment with full legal analysis is attached. Respectfully submitted, Lionel P. Trepanier Palm Desert, California 92211 lioneltrepanier@gmail.com October 6, 2026 --- [ATTACH FULL COMMENT DOCUMENT WITH COMPLETE ANALYSIS]

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, Dear In response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's announcement that it is proposing a complete rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule, I ask you to resist making this change. This is a move that, if finalized, would be the largest loss of protections for rivers on federal lands in U.S. history. Since 2001, the Roadless Rule has protected millions of acres of national forest lands that form the headwaters of some of the nation's most critical drinking water sources. Roadless areas safeguard more than 80,000 miles of rivers and streams, protecting fish and wildlife habitat and helping ensure clean drinking water for more than 25 million Americans, including residents of Denver, Atlanta, and Bozeman. Please reconsider this action, and keep the Roadless Rule as it is: a significant protection for rivers, clean water, and wildlife across the country. Sincerely, Loretta Garcia 4768 N HARRISON AVE, FRESNO, CA 93704-2909 USA FRESNO, CA 93704-2909 loril4garcia@gmail.com Sincerely, Loretta Garcia

FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT — PROPOSED RESCISSION OF 2001 ROADLESS RULE Docket Number: 2026-18648 October 6, 2026 TO THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: I, Lionel P. Trepanier (lioneltrepanier@gmail.com, Palm Desert, CA 92211), submit this comment, behalf Utah Tar Sands Resistance, an organization with a long history of advocating for and physically protecting public lands in Utah, including in the National Forests. We write in strong opposition to rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. VIOLATION OF LAW This rescission violates the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Federal Indian Law on multiple independent grounds: 1. APA VIOLATION—Arbitrary and Capricious: The agency's own Draft EIS states: "Road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as density of roads increases so does probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions." The proposed rescission contradicts this by authorizing new roads to mitigate wildfire risk. This is arbitrary and capricious disregard of agency's own science in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 2. FISCAL IRRATIONALITY: USFS deferred maintenance backlog exceeds $8.6-10.8 billion, with $6.4-6.9 billion tied to 370,000 miles of existing roads built 60+ years ago. Proposing new road construction while systematically underfunding existing infrastructure violates APA rational basis requirements. 3. PROCEDURAL INADEQUACY: Comment period is 53 days total (21 initial + 32 days). Original 2001 Roadless Rule: 129 days + 600 meetings. 2005 Bush rescission attempt: 182 days. This truncated process violates APA's requirement for meaningful public participation. 99% of initial public comments opposed rescission. 4. NEPA VIOLATION: DEIS fails to adequately analyze cumulative environmental impacts on 58.5 million acres, including degradation of municipal watersheds, loss of carbon sinks, habitat fragmentation, salmon spawning habitat destruction, and old-growth ecosystem loss. Fails hard-look review under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983). 5. ESA VIOLATION: Sweeping rescission across ranges of threatened/endangered species (marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, salmon populations) without completed ESA Section 7 consultations violates 16 U.S.C. § 1536. Grounds for injunctive relief. 6. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW VIOLATION: Rescission breaches federal trust responsibility to tribes, violates Executive Order 13175 requiring government-to-government consultation, and endangers treaty-protected hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ancestral lands. Industrial roadbuilding violates federal obligations to sovereign tribes. DEMAND I demand the Forest Service: - WITHDRAW the proposed rescission immediately - MAINTAIN the 2001 Roadless Rule in entirety - COMPLETE mandatory ESA Section 7 consultations - Provide 120-day comment period for any future rulemaking The 2001 Roadless Rule—enacted with broad bipartisan support and defended by federal courts—represents 25 years of successful policy protecting one-third of undeveloped National Forest System lands. Respectfully submitted, Lionel P. Trepanier, personally and as Director Utah Tar Sands Resistance Palm Desert, California 92211 utahtarsandsresistance@gmail.com October 6, 2026 -

As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Wilderness areas have intrinsic value beyond what they can provide for immediate human use, but make no mistake we are all impacted by environmental destruction. In a time when human activity has impacted 70% of the land and 80% of the ocean, species extinction rates are at least 100 times what they were before human-caused industrial era impacts, we need to work harder than ever to preserve what remains of our wilderness areas and biodiversity. With our current administration seeking to reduce protections for endangered species, open the remaining wilderness areas to extraction and other profit-based motives, and continuously making ignorant and dangerous choices in the face of climate change, we need more than ever to protect what is left of the wilderness areas. As a backpacker, I have had my most meaningful and healing moments in wilderness areas, including the Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Mendocino, and Tahoe National Forests. As a Californian, I can say that one of the biggest draws to living in or visiting this state are it's many natural areas that still preserve biodiversity and wildness. When we go as a backpacker leaving no trace into these areas, we catch a glimpse of a world worth protecting. We have enough human impacted, road networked areas already. Let's leave the rest alone. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, HEATHER KING Mendocino, CA 95460

Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining. Industrial activity would destroy the trees and trails we love. Keep our national forests wild. Sincerely, Patricia Frances Goff 10942 Quill Ave Sunland, CA 91040-2323 franthony68@gmail.com

I oppose the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to maintain the existing Rule as is. The Roadless Rule protects the watersheds of many of our National Wild and Scenic Rivers in California, as well as many rivers and streams deemed eligible for national protection by the Forest Service. The roadless areas through which these wild rivers flow are an important refuge for threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. They provide outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation in a primitive setting, such as hiking, backpacking, whitewater boating, mountain biking, and even motorized recreation on existing legal trails. Roadless areas provide clean water for wildlife and recreation and the rivers that flow from the roadless areas into reservoirs are an important source of high-quality water for downstream communities and farms. Many rivers to consider include but are not limited to the North Fork American, Rubicon, Mokelumne, Tuolumne, South Fork Kings, Middle Fork Feather, and North Fork Kern. The Roadless Rule does not limit public access. Most roadless areas are legally available for public recreation under the Rule – they are simply closed to new road building, commercial logging, and other development that requires new roads. It is not true that roadless areas increase wildfire threats. Roads – not roadless areas – are a primary source of wildfire starts. With 30+ years as a career wildland firefighter I have direct knowledge of how many fires are cause by humans, especially when they have easy access to forested areas by vehicle. Please go into the Dept of Agriculture (Forest Service) and Dept of Interior’s “wildfire cause” GIS data and plot it on maps. It is a quick & easy visual of human caused fire with a direct correlation to roads. I have direct knowledge that it is still possible to reduce hazardous fuels (in order to reduce wildfire risk) in Roadless Areas, without repealing the Rule. I have been an author, editor, and fire/fuels specialist on several hazardous fuels reduction environmental analysis projects and implementation of those NEPA projects within Roadless Areas. So please do NOT spin this repeal as a way to reduce wildfire risk when there are other tools (besides logging) to complete this work that already exists. Which brings me to my next comment. Heavy equipment also causes wildfires and bring risk to the roadless areas if used for logging operations. I have responded to many equipment caused fires outside of roadless areas both as a fire fighter and as a fire investigator. All you have to do is pull the “wildfire cause” GIS data to see this fact. I urge that Roadless Rule be retained to protect our wild places for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and as important sources of clean water for our communities and farms. Sincerely, Teresa Riesenhuber Sincerely, Teresa Riesenhuber Somerset, CA 95684

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz, As an ecologist, outdoor enthusiast, and outdoor educator, I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected some of our nation's wildest remaining national forestlands—nearly 45 million acres. These lands provide irreplaceable benefits to wildlife, communities, and the American public. Roadless areas are vital wildlife habitat. They provide large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat and important connections between national parks, wilderness areas, and other protected lands. They are particularly important for species such as elk, mule deer, salmon, grizzly bears, and many imperiled plants and animals. Roads and clearcuts fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife movement, and increase human disturbance. Roadless forests protect clean drinking water. National Forests contain the headwaters of many of our nation's rivers, and roadless areas occur within hundreds of municipal watersheds serving millions of Americans. Keeping these watersheds intact helps protect water quality, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and sustain healthy aquatic ecosystems. The Roadless Rule does not prohibit responsible forest management. The Forest Service retains the ability to conduct targeted projects to reduce wildfire risk, protect public safety, and restore ecological health. Conservation and active management are not mutually exclusive. These lands also provide exceptional opportunities for outdoor recreation and education. Hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, and simply experiencing solitude in an undeveloped landscape are important benefits of our national forests. Roadless areas also support subsistence and cultural practices, including those of Indigenous communities. Our national forests already contain an enormous road network that requires significant public resources to maintain. Preventing unnecessary new roads protects both ecological resources and taxpayer dollars. Once roads and intensive development fragment an intact landscape, the loss is difficult and costly to reverse. The Roadless Rule gives us the opportunity to preserve these places while they remain intact. As an ecologist, outdoor enthusiast, and outdoor educator, I respectfully urge you not to rescind or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please preserve these irreplaceable public lands for wildlife, clean water, recreation, and future generations. Thank you for your consideration and stewardship of our nation's public lands. Sincerely, Monique Kolster 5195 Westridge Circle Auburn, CA 95602 209-985-1206 mokolster@yahoo.com

Dear Chief Schultz & Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, California Four Wheel Drive Association (Cal4Wheel) is writing to provide public comment on the proposed rule to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please retain Cal4Wheel as an interested public for all subsequent notices, environmental documents, hearings, and rulemaking materials associated with this proceeding. Correspondence may be directed to the following address and email address: Rose Winn California Four Wheel Drive Association 8120 36th Avenue Sacramento, CA 95824 rwinn@cal4nrc.com Sincerely, Rose Winn Natural Resource Consultant California Four Wheel Drive Association

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , Please choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. This rule protects so many acres of national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. By rescinding this rule, new roads and development would break up untouched habitat, degrade waterways, and put our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important to keep intact. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Sue Hammond 2507 Norwalk Court Martinez, CA 94553 Sincerely, Sue Hammond

Keep the Roadless Rule fully intact! As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Heather Beatty Placerville, CA 95667

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. As a leader in the outdoor retail industry in Southern California, am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies, like mine--the Inland Empire of Southern California, that depend on outdoor recreation. I serve thousands of customers each year that are outfitting themselves to recreate within the roadless areas of the San Bernadino National Forest--a space literally in our backyard, and should be protected. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Pearl Dailey 12218 Foothill Blvd Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739-9357 pdailey@rei.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, Hi. My name is Kimberly and I love being outside. In fact, just this year, I’ve visited 5 National Parks. I’m so grateful they exist. This country is great because of how incredible and wild our parks are. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Kimberly Fisher Burbank, CA 91506-1540 kimbernfish@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins and U.S. Forest Service Officials, I frequently travel in my campervan and enjoy my stays in National Forests throughout the Western states. I strongly urge you to preserve the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting Alternative 1 (No Action) and dropping any proposals to rescind or weaken these vital protections. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has successfully safeguarded roughly 45 million acres of our nation’s wildest national forests from destructive road building and industrial logging. These untouched landscapes provide critical benefits that far outweigh any short-term extractive uses: Clean Drinking Water: Roadless watersheds supply safe, clean drinking water to tens of millions of Americans. Wildfire Resilience: Undisturbed forests naturally experience fewer human-caused ignitions and lower wildfire risks compared to heavily roaded tracts. Wildlife Habitat: These areas offer an irreplaceable refuge for native fish, migratory birds, and large mammals, preventing harmful habitat fragmentation. Recreation Economy: Backcountry roadless areas support sustainable outdoor recreation—such as hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping—that drives our regional economies. Rolling back this proven safeguard is reckless, unnecessary, and goes against the overwhelming public consensus that values our public lands. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact for current and future generations. Sincerely, Debra Burstiner McKinleyville, CA 95519

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests and wild lands this rule protects are a rarity, and the agency's own record makes clear why rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be a serious mistake. I oppose this rescission without reservation. Public lands that remain wild have been preserved for a reason, and that reason is not so that certain industries can exploit them for timber, oil, and minerals. Wood that ends up as a pallet tossed after one use is not a justification for opening rare habitats to permanent road building and extraction. These are limited areas. Industry has no right to exploitation of preserved habitats, and conservation should be taught and practiced, not traded away for marginal and uncertain economic returns. The agency's own findings on wildfire make the case against this proposal with particular force. The record before the agency 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 in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet the agency's own data show that introducing roads increases ignition risk dramatically. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, 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. The economic rationale for rescission is equally difficult to sustain. The record the agency compiled 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." These are not significant national supply figures. 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. Instead of exploiting our public lands for industry, we should be granting them funding to maintain and preserve their ability to function. The agency is already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it already has, on a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. It cannot explain on the record how an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already strained past its means. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can replace the national rule, but this ground has already been tested. The record reflects that the agency previously described its "dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule" and its rejection of the rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach," citing 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. What the record also reflects is that the Ninth Circuit identified deficiencies in precisely that state-by-state replacement. Rare plant life and habitat that hold national significance cannot be protected incrementally, region by region. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the specific deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency tried this approach. Finally, the statutory authority argument underlying the proposal has already been resolved by a federal appellate court. The record states: "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 that 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 must explain, with specificity, the legal basis for any contrary position it now takes. These public lands belong to all of us. Say no to big industry destroying habitat and rare plant life. The agency should answer each of these points in full before proceeding further. Sincerely, Lisa Stroud Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 Agency: U.S. Forest Service, USDA Subject: Strong Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Dear Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollings and Chief of the Forest Service, I am writing to express my unequivocal opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an active recreationist who relies on the pristine wildlands of California's Sierra Nevada, I strongly urge the agency to maintain existing protections for our remaining Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to consider the permanent ecological and economic harm that lifting these protections will bring to the vital gateway landscapes surrounding Yosemite National Park, the Tuolumne River watershed, and the Eastern Sierra. I oppose the rule's repeal for the following substantive reasons: * Threats to the Yosemite and Tuolumne Wilderness Boundaries: The 2001 Roadless Rule protects critical, intact wild tracts on the western slope of the central Sierra, directly adjacent to Yosemite National Park within the Stanislaus and Sierra National Forests. This includes fragile forest buffers framing the Tioga Pass corridor and the high-elevation headwaters of the Tuolumne River watershed. Allowing commercial road construction up to the park boundaries fragments critical ecological buffer zones and risks severe soil erosion and stream sedimentation, threatening downstream municipal water supplies and world-class white-water and backcountry recreation. * Impact on Ansel Adams Wilderness Buffers: The IRAs adjacent to the Ansel Adams Wilderness provide a critical protective shield for one of the most heavily used alpine wilderness areas in the United States. Stripping roadless protections from these bordering lands will allow industrial infrastructure, commercial logging roads, and motorized traffic to encroach directly onto wilderness boundaries, destroying the solitude, dark night skies, and pristine wilderness character that draw millions of visitors to the region annually. * Degrading the Eastern Sierra and Mono Lake Basin: In the Inyo National Forest, roadless areas safeguard the fragile, high-desert sagebrush and alpine transition zones of the Mono Lake basin. These intact landscapes are vital for the regional recreation-based economy, supporting hiking, climbing, fishing, and pack-scouting. Opening these terrains to industrial use will fundamentally disrupt critical wildlife migration corridors for iconic species like the bi-state sage-grouse and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. * Flawed Wildfire Justifications: The Forest Service claims that rescinding the rule is necessary for wildfire mitigation, yet the agency's own data contradicts this. Over twenty years of data proves that roadless areas can be—and are—actively treated for fuels reduction using smarter, lower-impact methods. Furthermore, the DEIS acknowledges that building new roads introduces more human traffic and vehicle-related exhaust heat, which exponentially increases the risk of human-caused wildfire ignitions in the severe weather-driven terrain of the Sierra. * Fiscal Irresponsibility: The Forest Service currently faces an unsustainable multibillion-dollar deferred road maintenance backlog. Proposing to build and manage new roads in the rugged terrain of the Sierra Nevada while failing to maintain existing infrastructure is fiscally irresponsible and takes vital funding away from actual local forest restoration efforts. The 2001 Roadless Rule provides a balanced framework that allows for Tribal use, public safety, and wildfire management while protecting our last wild spaces. Do not strip protections from the wild forests that define California's natural heritage. I urge the USDA to withdraw this proposal and maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, Rosa Ramirez Crowley Lake, CA 93546 Rrosarosa819@Gmail.com

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE ROADLESS RULE!!!! I am emailing you in SUPPORT of the Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” to keep the Roadless Rule intact. As a young person who grew up in the Midwest, went to school out in the Northeast, and who is now living in Southern California, I have seen first-hand what nature has to offer across the entire mainland US. There is no better feeling than being out alone in the woods around nothing human-made- a polution free, ecological bliss. Plain and simple, it's good for the soul. Removing the Roadless Rule would deeply impact not only me, but millions of people across the US, thousands spieces of native flora and fauna, decrease the amounts of drinkable water, and increase the rate of forest fires. I implore you, so I can keep growing up in a world with nature, and so the generations after me can too, DO NOT remove this rule. Ask yourself if it'd be worth it- furthering our Earth's decline by ignoring this plea. Please. Let us keep the forests safe. Sincerely, Orly Zuckerman North Hollywood, CA 91601

I oppose the attempt to repeal the Roadless Rule, because it will lead to more human-caused wildfires, less clean water, and damage the natural beauty of these areas. An often used argument for more roads is that it will allow us to more effectively fight wildfires, but this is a fallacy. If built, these roads will allow for more human-caused ignitions as more people and corporations misuse these areas. With disgust at the attempt, Jarod Contreras Grover Beach, CA 93433

I would like to begin by saying that I truly appreciate the privilege of being able to submit my comment. You have my gratitude for carefully reading and considering the viewpoint of each citizen. I value unspoiled nature for numerous reasons, but I will discuss two here: #1 - The many beautiful settings we have across our beautiful land give unmeasurable pleasure to millions of people. I would hope that we would keep as much of it as possible unscarred by roads. #2 - Healthy ecosystems protect our human health. Disrupting healthy ecosystems with road cuts affects the health of watersheds and destroys habitat. Without the natural percolation of water, where there is unnatural runoff and erosion caused by roads, the purity of our water is compromised. Furthermore, habitat destruction is the main cause of extinctions. When species go extinct, there is an inescapable ripple effect that affects not only our water, but our air, and the flora and fauna that keep our human environment healthy. If we disregard ecosystem health, we do it at our own peril. I ask that we follow the wise, long term view of preservation whenever possible. Again, thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Paul Skutches 17625 Route 5 Road Sonora, CA 95370

Do not get rid of the Roadless Rule! Our forests have suffered enough. As a person who recreates and lives near the Sierra and Inyo national forests, is a wildlife artist, and local organizer I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. I am a frequent camper in these forests, lead low cost group photography trips there (as an event coordinator for the Central Valley Camera Club), and spend money in the communities nearby at restaurants and small businesses. I fish the waters, hike the trails, and travel the already plentiful existing roads. We need the roadless areas to protect our fish species, native plant life, drinking water and to prevent even more out of control forest fires. Our California Native tribes also have a right to continue their cultural practices in said lands. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Tess McClellan Fresno, CA 93704