Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 For more than five decades, I have enjoyed hiking, birding, hunting, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and more in roadless areas across this country, from the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire to the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana and in many other states. These areas have given me and my friends and family some of the most enjoyable outdoor experiences of our lifetimes. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would put the quality of such experiences for Americans in jeopardy. I file this comment to oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule and to make clear why the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own analysis makes that rescission indefensible. Hiking in a roadless expanse is exhilarating and an unmatched experience for me. There is nothing like the silence, the solitude, the beauty, and the unbroken immensity of these landscapes to lift the soul. These feelings should not be taken lightly; they are what lasts. The issues of water quality, protection against wildfires, over logging and habitat degradation are what last also when more roads are built in these areas. The White Mountain's 16 inventoried roadless areas total 240,669 acres, and they are the headwaters for rivers flowing to the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Saco, supplying drinking water to communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Across the Eastern region that includes New Hampshire, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. These are not abstractions. The Bicknell's thrush, the Canada lynx, the northern long-eared bat, the brook trout and the American marten all inhabit these forests. The Weeks Act of 1911, which authorized federal purchase of private land for national forests, was passed specifically because of what happened when New England's mountains were clearcut. We have already learned this lesson once. I have noticed in my lifetime the degradation of fishing on the Blackfoot River in Montana due to the impacts of logging, wildfire and other detrimental activities in that watershed, not to mention climate change. The agency's own document acknowledges that skid roads, trails, log landings, and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." That figure appears in the document and then goes nowhere. No projection of sediment delivery to downstream water supplies follows it. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas before it proceeds any further. I have spent decades birding these forests, and the science the agency itself cites should give it pause. The DEIS cites the findings 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 is striking, and it appears in the document applied to nothing. No projection across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment follows it but should. Removing prohibitions on road building will also harm big game. 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. Yet no population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. Hunters who have relied on roadless country for decades deserve more than a cited finding floating without consequence. The agency must project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity before this rescission advances. These forest areas are owned by the public and should be managed with regard to their wishes and values. The agency itself recognizes as much: 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 exactly such an interest. Decades of planning, travel, and expectation have been built around the protections the 2001 rule established. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it can lawfully change course. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will result in damage to habitat, to water, and to the recreational experience of Americans who value these landscapes as something loftier and more life-enriching than a monetary asset or line item. My opposition is stated clearly, and I expect clear responses to each of the specific failures this comment identifies. Sincerely, William Brassard Jr. Newtown, CT 06470

Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Keeping this very effective Rule in place is key to preserving those inner pristine, true wilderness areas intact and unspoiled. In these cases the mature, old growth trees are a magnet to logging. These old trees have stored carbon for years and their harvesting will not help us achieve our climate goals by 2030 and 2050 - the reduction of carbon in our atmosphere. The other concern is the proliferation of 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes leading to mudrunning, trail blazing and short run hedonism (hell raising) as well as campfires, littering and all the rest of irresponsible human activity that is a by-product of the partying mindset. Leave the roadless rule in place; it works! 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, Robert Fritsch 158 Old Farm Drive Newington Ct 6111 Newington, CT 06111 rfritsch1@outlook.com

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 are treasured Public Lands not to be sold off or leased for destructive logging, extractive digging & blasting, or even mudrunning, run-amuck ATVs in pristine, quiet woodlands. 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, Robert Fritsch 158 Old Farm Drive Newington Ct Newington, CT 06111 rfritsch1@outlook.com

At Friends of Animals, the international animal advocacy group headquartered in Darien, CT, we vigorously oppose the Trump Administration's complete rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule, which blocks road construction and most logging and mining activity on tens of millions of acres of public forest land. Since Donald Trump destroyed America's import of timber from Canada, he has put in motion a thoughtless rampage on wilderness and roadless areas without any regard for the threats that poses to wildlife, humans and the environment we share. His actions have threatened forest health and imperiled many species. Healthy rivers and streams require protected habitats and roadless areas -- not commercial plunder. Endangered and other species shouldn't be threatened by having their critical habitats tossed to logging and mining interests. These animals include grizzly bears, wolverines, spotted owls, salamanders, chipmunks, and Canada lynx. Please resist and end the assault on forests by killing the proposal to rollback the 2001 Roadless Rule. Priscilla Feral President Friends of Animals 777 Post Road Darien, CT 06820

Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination: I am writing to respectfully urge the Forest Service not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Protecting the remaining roadless forests in the White and Green Mountain National Forests matters to me because these forests are not isolated wilderness areas—they are part of a larger watershed that affects the health of the Connecticut River and the communities that depend on it. These forests provide essential headwaters, clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, climate resilience, and opportunities for recreation and solitude. Intact roadless forests also perform important work that is easy to take for granted: forest cover, healthy soils, wetlands, natural buffers, and undisturbed drainage systems help capture and filter water before it reaches streams and rivers. Opening these areas to additional road construction and increased logging would put those benefits at greater risk. Roads and intensified development can increase erosion, sedimentation, and runoff while fragmenting wildlife habitat and disrupting natural water systems. The consequences would not necessarily stop at the forest boundary; they could extend downstream to the Connecticut River and the communities and ecosystems that rely on its waters. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Forest Service to maintain the Roadless Rule and select Alternative 1—No Action—in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Maintaining consistent protections is the prudent choice for safeguarding clean water, healthy rivers, wildlife, recreation, and the long-term health of these forests. Once roadless forests are fragmented and their natural systems disrupted, those losses cannot easily be reversed. We have an opportunity now to protect these lands for the people, wildlife, and communities that depend on them—including future generations. Thank you for considering my comments and for the opportunity to participate in this important decision. Sincerely, Verena Harfst, Essex, CT 06426

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep intact the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”), which protects nearly 45 million acres of our nation's forests and grasslands. Prior to the rule's implementation in 2001, industrial logging and accompanying roadbuilding disrupted and destroyed 3.2 million acres of fragile habitat annually while also degrading clean water supplies and limiting outdoor recreation opportunities. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected ecologically sensitive landscapes, wildlife populations and habitat, and communities dependent upon their services. The rule protects countless wild animals, including imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival. Additionally, these lands provide clean water and support numerous recreational activities that sustain local jobs and economies. The rule allows for flexibility in resource management, with exceptions for vegetation management and road construction projects in the interest of public health and safety. The American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule; recent bipartisan polling shows that 77% of voters support conserving roadless lands. Indeed, the rule was created with input from over 1.6 million comments and, in September, over half a million Americans responded to the U.S. Forest Service's notice of intent to repeal the Roadless Rule with comments voicing strong opposition. We have made our opinion clear time and time again–our public lands should remain public, not be degraded for the interests of private industry. I strongly urge the U.S. Forest Service not to repeal the Roadless Rule, as keeping the rule intact will protect our shared forestlands for generations to come. Diane-Michele Petrillo 3708 Whitney Avenue, CT 06518-1516 Sincerely, Ms. Diane-Michele Petrillo