Read the comments.

Thanks to all who tirelessly serve the taxpayer base via their work in the federal government. I vehemently stand against rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. The rule is in place today to conserve and save the few remaining wild places left in the USA. Rescinding the rule will undoubtedly cause undo harm to the backcountry as we know it, even if its not intended too. Leave wild places wild! Thank You Jon De Jong 720 Boston Ave NE Orange City, IA 51041

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to fully or partially rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am retired and live in Muscatine, Iowa, and my husband and I look forward to visiting our beautiful national parks and forests. National forests and inventoried roadless areas matter deeply to me because they are a treasure of beautiful landscapes and home to wildlife habitats that are a part of God’s creation which we are obligated to protect. Fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule would threaten unfragmented backcountry landscapes, wildlife habitats, and clean water sources. Roads fragment ecosystems in ways that cause long-term ecological harm, and dismantling these protections undermines the natural integrity of our public lands. Also consider that a recent study found that 80 percent of human-caused fires happen within a half mile of a road. Roadless areas thus reduce fire risk rather than increasing it. Further, it is likely that additional roads would not be properly maintained. The U.S. Forest Service has 371,000 miles of roads already — roughly eight times more than the entire U.S. interstate highway system - and the maintenance backlog for these forest roads is $6.1 billion. I urge the Forest Service to drop the proposed rescission and instead support Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative) to maintain full, permanent protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Lisa Longtin Muscatine, IA 52761

Dear Secretary: As a U.S. citizen and Iowan, I oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule, and instead urge the Department to keep the rule in place as written. It is an essential rule to protect our diminishing wild places and wild lands. Once roads are built, habitat degrades and roads are generally never removed. Thus, roads intrude on wild places that are not only good for wildlife, but for people. Most people in the U.S. enjoy nature and we should keep this rule in place. I ask this administration to consider the needs of generations of Americans two and three removed from those of us currently living. Tearing up our last roadless areas - even if not all of the areas ultimately see road building - should not be done right now and we should conserve more resources and wild spaces for the future. Republicans and Democrats alike, indeed, Americans of all stripes, believe in nature and we must conserve it by preserving the roadless rule. Sincerely, John Tillo 4202 Arizona Circle Ames, IA 50014

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I love nature and being outdoors. The most magical and inspiring places are the ones we have left alone. Untouched land is extremely important to the well-being of the world. I believe we need stronger protections for our public lands, and should not be creating more road for so many reasons. 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 hike and camp in these areas, and the small outfitters and guides who work this same country help people like me get out there. They deserve a real assessment. 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: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I plan to visit these areas and am counting on protection to keep them what they are. That reliance is exactly what the agency asked commenters to describe. 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 3: The agency's own fire data cuts against the proposal I hike and camp in this country, and fire destroys plans. 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 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. Issue 4: Every conservation alternative was eliminated by how the purpose was written I want this land managed responsibly, and responsible management starts with an honest comparison of the options. The agency wrote its purpose so that comparison could not happen. 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 5: Wildfire is not the stated legal basis, and the targeted alternative was rejected I want this land managed responsibly, which means matching the tool to the stated problem. The agency's own documents do not. The purpose and need is to reduce regulatory burden and return decisionmaking to local officials. Overlap with the wildland-urban interface as defined by HFRA is 9.8 million acres, 24 percent of the affected area, and and the DEIS says the benefits of added fuel-management access "would likely be modest and localized." The agency built and rejected a WUI-targeted alternative that would answer the fire rationale without nationwide rescission. I ask that the agency explain why nationwide rescission was chosen over the WUI-targeted alternative it constructed and rejected. 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. Tara Hill Shell Rock, IA 50670

Please do not repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I fear that overturning this rule could allow exploitation of our wilderness lands and cause changes that we could never undo. Thanks, David Handley 350 S Park Rd Tiffin, IA 52340