Read the comments.

RE: Docket Number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66 I am writing to submit my comments regarding rescinding the Roadless Rule, Docket Number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66. I respectfully request that the Roadless Rule remain in full force. I reside adjacent to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Klickitat County. As a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest, I treasure the natural beauty it offers and hold dear the preservation of areas intended to serve nature solely for itself without the threat of human pressures. As a small forest owner/steward I know how impactful any type of disturbance can be to the ecosystem. We spent five weeks witnessing the destruction of 44 acres of the parcel that borders us on two sides while they installed roads and clear-cut last summer (June 2025). The logging trucks start rolling (four per hour at a minimum) in at 2:30 AM and the feller buncher fires up at the very same time, running for ten to twelve hours- six days a week. A decibel meter registered readings of 95 db. for many hours over the course of the day. It was impossible to sleep and the production of our flock of chickens dropped to less than half for the duration of the logging operations. Those are just two of the impacts, there were many more to ourselves and the surrounding community. Every type of wildlife left for the duration of the logging, and it took until this spring for them to begin to return. Our forests had been planted at the same time, and the trees were more than 75 years old- young in the life of a forest and a lifetime for most humans. Our adjoining parcels contain extensive wetlands, seasonal waterways, and ponds. None of these were protected from the destruction and oversight to ensure that setbacks were observed was non-existent. The impact was and has been intense, causing tremendous flooding where it had not occurred previously. Water and precipitation at our elevation (2000’) is precious and would have stayed higher in the watershed had those trees still been there and the wetlands not been demolished during the logging. We are in our fourth year of drought here in the northwest and every drop feels precious. Our pond is the lowest we’ve ever witnessed in the 10 plus years we’ve owned. I share our experience in the hope that you will closely consider the ALL of the potential impacts of rescinding the Roadless Rule- both short term and long term. Our forests are under tremendous pressure, at a time when we need them more than ever to help offset climate change. Humans have spent the past three centuries creating monocultures, including in our forests. The lack of complex ecosystems has dramatically impacted the health of our forests, and now policy makers, Department of Natural resources, and logging interests are using the perceived threat of forest fires to push a narrative of burning to enhance forest health. Rescinding the roadless rule will have tremendous impacts that will take generations to repair. The Roadless Rule helps preserve: •Clean Water for Communities •Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity •Outdoor Recreation and Local Economies •Natural Resilience •Threaten Tribal Sovereignty and access to traditional, sacred gathering grounds. Any action taken that will reduce these restrictions puts these pristine areas at risk. Most Sincerely, Jennifer Sharp 12 Pyatt Rd., White Salmon, WA 98672

Dear Secretary Rollins, I grew up on the edge of the El Dorado National Forest; a place that will forever be dear to my heart, though I now live in the also-magical realm of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. As someone who recreates in these public lands, I am -not- in support of building more roads in them. I have seen the tragedies of additional road-building in these wild areas too often; habitat is fragmented and animals are often killed trying to access breeding grounds, forage, and other essential habitat. Hazardous chemicals and tire dust from vehicles are dispersed into these environments, threatening drinking water and our Western salmon populations. Though some claim that the Roadless Rule has increased the incidence of wildfire, this is untrue, and wildfires are more likely to ignite near roadsides.(1) Please leave the Roadless Rule in place as it is. I absolutely do not support any of the proposed alternatives that would weaken it. Please spend taxpayer money responsibly on conservation endeavours that support these irreplaceable lands instead of paving them over. References: (1)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 Sincerely, Nicole Johnston Vancouver, WA 98683 nljohnston.ast@gmail.com

The Forest Service must keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am very concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas give us important benefits such as 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 that depend on outdoor recreation. 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, Daniel Tatum 3825 NE 115th St Seattle, WA 98125-5757 daniel.b.tatum@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, We the People do not want more noise pollution, more endangering habitats and its creatures, more money wasted on killing our natural world- of which we are a part of! We need our forests protected!!! I am vehemently against overturning the Roadless Rule, please use your power to the fullest extent to maintain the protections it provides. Sincerely, Amanita Epic Auburn, WA 98001-9593 amanita.epic@gmail.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , As someone who cares deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact 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. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting 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 for future generations. 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. I am begging. Please look at the destruction this would bring to our public lands and stop this. Katie Shaw PO Box 223 Kingston, WA 98346 Sincerely, Katie Shaw

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I am writing alongside many like-minded individuals who care deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, urging you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. The Roadless Rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands for over two decades, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water and air, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy, the very ecosystems of which all life depends on- us humans included. Rescinding the rule puts our public lands at risk, exposing these treasured and sacred landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and doing immediate and long-term irreparable harm. 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 for future generations. We are at a very critical time in our brief history as humans on this planet, in which each and every decision we make concerning the only home we have and share with other beings will define our future. We are facing an existential crisis, and now more than ever, we need and must protect the lands, waters and biodiversity that sustain the delicate balance that is life on Earth. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, national parks, and our future. Thank you for your time. Blanca Diaz Alejandro 6821 Udall Pl. SE Auburn, WA 98092 Sincerely, Blanca Diaz Alejandro

Dear Secretary Rollins, We need the Roadless Rule to remain intact! Please reject the short-sighted USDA proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule which protects so much of what makes this country glorious. We desperately need our wild spaces. Tampering with the Roadless Rule would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. We love our wild spaces! We.need them for our collective mental health. I cutrently have the privilege of living right outside Olympic National Park and don't want to imagine the damage it would suffer. For over two decades, I camped and hiked in Colorado's public lands, memories I will carry with me always. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. As we face climate collapse, it's horrifying to even contemplate slashing through intact ecosystems. PLEASE protect and strengthen what we have. Listen to the people: leave the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Tracy Abell Port Angeles, WA 98362-4807 tracyabell99@gmail.com

Comment letter- Roadless Rule Rescission- Oct 6, 2026 Allison Warner, 316 Dove Drive, Camano Island, WA 98282 Dear Secretary Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture, I am writing to express my opposition to the Roadless Rule Rescission as proposed by the US Forest Service. I am a semi-retired soil scientist and a wetland ecologist professionally and a birder and wild area enthusiast in my leisure time. From my more than 30-year career working in forests and wetlands, including 6 years at the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, from which I am a retiree, I am aware of the economic value as well as the ecological value of large undisturbed tracks of land, forest management, and many national laws and management plans such as the NW Forest Plan. I am an author of watershed analyses for the Beckler River, and North Fork Skykomish watershed and several environmental assessments including one to propose reducing roads on the Skykomish Ranger District, for which I conducted public scoping and led the interdisciplinary team. I am opposed to the rescission of the roadless rule for many reasons, which all are linked to each other and to the ecological value of these areas for wildlife, for endangered species, for the communities that depend on the water resources provided by these areas, and for their economic services and value to the States and Nation as a whole. The analysis provided for this proposed rulemaking must fully address the economic impacts of removing the Roadless Rule, including potential increased fire risk, and costs to communities. Although the federal register states that it complies with the Federalism EO 13132 , the very purpose of this proposal is to remove restrictions on road-building within these designated areas, which would have consequences that impact States such as Washington State where I live. We already experience many days each summer of unacceptable air quality due to smoke from forest fires in the adjacent mountains. This has affected my family members who have asthma, and it affects our economy as people must stay indoors during bad air quality days. I also creates costs for WA State associated with managing fires and air quality. Please see attached my comments as you only have a 5000 word limit here.

Please do not remove protections for the Roadless areas. This is our National Heritage - America’s best idea. John Harris 31006 O Place Ocean Park, WA 98640

Please do not rescind the roadless rule! At some point, it will be too late to have any areas where intact ecosystems can thrive. When this happens what we lose is irreplaceable. Future generations we look back upon us with disgust at how little foresight we had. Make no mistake, rescinding these rules would allow roads and with roads will come destruction of vital habit for all the creatures that I for one marvel from grizzly bears to tiny song birds. The reality is we should be adding to the roadless areas to create connectivity. Please, I urge you, do not rescind the roadless area conservation rule. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sandra Woods 3133 35th Ave S Seattle, WA 98144 sam1woods@hotmail.com

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Olympic National Forest has been part of my life since I was two years old. I have camped there every year since, and it is one of my favorite places on earth. This place is why I fell in love with the natural world. It has made me who I am today. That is the ground from which I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in Docket FS-2025-0001. The agency's own cost accounting contradicts its regulatory flexibility conclusion. "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." That certification is reached not by examining the guides and outfitters who actually hold permits in the affected roadless areas, but by averaging a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, a method the supporting analysis itself concedes may leave some firms absorbing the full loss of those receipts. Outfitters and guides operating in Olympic National Forest and forests like it are not a national average. They are specific businesses serving specific landscapes, and the rule change would reach them directly. I ask that the agency withdraw the small-entity certification and assess the impact on the businesses actually permitted and operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Planning and recreation decisions made in reliance on the 2001 rule deserve weight here, and the agency has not given them any. "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 the kind of reliance interest the solicitation invites. People who have built their relationship to these forests, their sense of where wild land would remain wild, around the protections the 2001 rule established are now asked to speak while the analysis treats their interests as weightless. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it proceeds further. The agency's fire data argues against its own proposal, and the effects analysis does not resolve the contradiction. "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." I camp in Olympic National Forest because it remains intact, because its forests are healthy enough to be worth returning to year after year. Road access that multiplies ignition density by a factor this large is not a neutral tradeoff against claimed wildfire hazard reduction. The agency has not quantified what increase in human-caused fire can be expected from new road construction, nor weighed that increase against whatever hazard reduction it projects. That quantification must appear in the record before any decision is made. Finally, the agency has structured this proposal to avoid analyzing its most consequential foreseeable consequence. "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 cannot simultaneously treat plan amendments as beyond scope and invite the public to comment on them. If expanded timber harvest is a foreseeable result of rescinding the rule, it is part of this action, not a separate future matter, and the agency is asking commenters to do the analytical work it has declined to do itself. The foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including the areas where timber harvest could expand, belongs inside the environmental analysis for this proposal, not outside it. Olympic National Forest made me who I am. I oppose this rescission, and I expect each of these failures of analysis to be addressed fully in the record. Sincerely, Alison Seattle, WA 98118

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Baker River and its tributaries, the alpine lakes throughout the region, the Liberty Bell area: these are not abstractions to me. I work in restoration, and I have watched what road creation does to water. Sedimentation, degradation of habitat, increased water temperature. I have seen these things. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will produce more of them, and the agency's own analysis makes that plain while declining to follow the logic through. The DEIS 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 number is stated and then left hanging. No projection of sediment delivery follows it. Across the Pacific Northwest region alone, which includes Washington, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. People downstream of those intakes are drinking that water. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas and explain in the final record how that delivery is controlled under the proposed rescission. The drinking water problem runs deeper than sediment. The DEIS states: "Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas, through more than 7,000 municipal intakes, and less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired." The document then asserts that forest plans address public drinking water, but it does not identify a single enforceable provision in any of those plans equivalent to what the rule currently requires. We have a responsibility to manage our public lands for people, water quality, and habitat. That responsibility cannot be discharged by a general reference to forest plans that are never examined. The agency must identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds. I hike and ski in the Liberty Bell area frequently. It is a gorgeous zone that would be completely changed if roads were allowed. Liberty Bell sits within the Okanogan National Forest and covers 108,495 acres. Washington holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and what happens to the rule happens to all of them. On the biology The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. That range is wide enough to span catastrophe, yet no projection across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment follows it. The Liberty Bell area has a character that comes precisely from its freedom from roads and the development roads enable. The agency should apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment and explain what outcome it considers acceptable. On the economics, 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 guides and outfitters who work in areas like Liberty Bell are not a national average. Spreading an expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector to reach a no-impact conclusion does not assess the firms actually holding permits in the affected areas. The certification should be withdrawn and the impact assessed for the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. One further point: I don't think it makes sense to build more roads when the agency can't keep up with maintenance of the roads it already has. The agency is aware of its maintenance backlog. Building new roads into country that currently has none, while that backlog grows, transfers a long-term liability to the public and to the watersheds those roads will drain into. The final record should address this directly. Sincerely, Walker Brown Bellingham, WA 98225

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. These lands are a huge part of what makes America a great nation. Few other civilazations on earth still have the kind of magestic landscapes that we have preserved here, and if we squander them now, after all these years, what will we have left to pass on to our grandchildren? When we talk about our national debt, it is also important to acknowledge our national wealth, and our wild lands are an irreplaceable jewel we can never replace. Once gone, they will be gone forever. 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, Susan Zeman 5026 Renton Ave S Apt 113 Seattle, WA 98118-1975 susanzeman8@gmail.com

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Camping with children and grandchildren is a summer tradition in our family. At their current ages we only hike short trails, but I look forward to the day we can explore further into the roadless backcountry together. That future depends on keeping that country intact, and this proposal would put it at risk. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for rescission. The DEIS states 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 ignition data sitting directly behind that finding is equally stark: "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." I want to know how the agency reconciles a proposal framed partly around wildfire management with its own data showing that roads are the problem, not the solution. The agency must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions that would follow from new road access and weigh that increase honestly against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard before proceeding further. As a taxpayer, I am very concerned about how our dollars are spent. The agency is already carrying an enormous maintenance backlog on the roads it has, and a road budget that falls far short of what is needed to address it. Building roads into country that provides habitat and clean water is the opposite of how I want my money allocated. Leave that land alone until you have fully demonstrated that you can maintain the roads already there. The proposal does not grapple with this basic stewardship question, and the agency should answer it squarely in the record. The regulatory flexibility analysis compounds this problem. "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 agency reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. That is not analysis; that is arithmetic arranged to avoid a finding. The agency must withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating in these areas, not a national average. Finally, the agency's own notice invites comment on reliance interests. "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." My family's expectation that this country will remain accessible and unroaded for our grandchildren to hike one day is exactly the kind of interest that expectation creates. Under the legal principles governing agency reversals, that interest must be identified and weighed, not solicited and discarded. The agency must account for the reliance interests expressed in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Sally Bartow Seattle, WA 98116

I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule should remain in place. Our wild lands are a part of who we are as Americans. They provide habitat for our wildlife, ensure clean water, allow for backcountry recreation opportunities, and preserve spaces unpolluted, undisturbed, undestroyed by human encroachment. These preserved spaces are vital to our own continuation as a species—clean water and air, and the basic elements of the food chain that keep us fed begin there. Rescinding the roadless rule is a shortsighted step toward our own destruction. Sincerely, Rhonda Conley, Everett, WA 98203

Attention: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Re: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (Proposed Rule) Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 RIN: 0596-AD66 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule to completely rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a Washington State resident and an avid outdoors person, I deeply value our state’s public lands and the irreplaceable recreation, ecological, and economic benefits they provide. Washington is home to millions of acres of national forests, from the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie to the Okanogan-Wenatchee and the Colville. These inventoried roadless areas are the backbone of our thriving outdoor recreation economy, drawing hikers, backpackers, anglers, hunters, and climbers from across the region. Leaving these areas intact is essential for preserving the quiet, pristine backcountry experiences that are becoming increasingly rare. Furthermore, keeping these lands roadless is vital for the region’s environmental and public health: * Clean Water and Salmon Habitat: Washington's roadless areas protect the high-elevation headwaters of major rivers that provide clean drinking water to our communities and serve as critical spawning grounds for threatened salmon and steelhead populations. Road building leads to erosion and runoff that severely degrades these fragile aquatic habitats. * Climate Resilience and Biodiversity: Our mature and old-growth forests act as powerful carbon sinks and provide contiguous, unfragmented corridors for wildlife like grizzly bears, wolves, and wolverines to adapt to a changing climate. * Wildfire Mitigation: While fuel management is necessary, creating new roads through remote backcountry will not protect Washington's communities. Statistical data shows that human-caused wildfires are far more likely to spark near roads. The Forest Service should focus its limited resources on community-adjacent mitigation within the wildland-urban interface rather than expanding an already underfunded road maintenance backlog. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to listen to the people of Washington and the millions of Americans who rely on these lands. Please reject the proposed full rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Katrina Knutson Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the the roadless rule. 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, Neal Dickinson Everett, WA 98203-1353 therealnealdickonson@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, 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. Our roadless forests represent some of the most pristine, resilient ecosystems left in the nation. 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. These areas also support a massive outdoor industry, providing economic benefits to rural communities and allowing for hiking, skiing, hunting, and other forms of recreation. 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. Repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I am against any of the proposed action alternatives that interfere with 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. 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, Valdemar Hill Vancouver, WA 98661-1902 dmars6971@yahoo.com

I strongly oppose the repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Such an action would be both unwarranted and unwise, especially during this time of unprecedented changes in our climate. Our roadless areas contain the headwaters of many of our sources of drinking water throughout our nation, and as such should continue to be protected from degradation of any kind. It has been established that human-caused wildfires are four times more likely to start within roaded areas. Repealing the Roadless Rule has the potential to add miles of new roads through our national lands, thus increasing the likelihood of an increased number of fires. Neither facts nor logic support the claim that more roads are needed to fight forest fires. Roadless areas contain some of our most important wildlife habitat, and promote opportunities for recreation. These areas are at the heart of the truly “best American idea” – to preserve our natural and wilderness areas – an idea that has defined our nation for decades. Susan Koptonak 108 Borchard Lane PO Box 811 Twisp, WA 98856.

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. THE CLOSEST ROADLESS AREA TO MY ZIP CODE, 98115, IS GREEN MOUNTAIN IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, WASHINGTON, ABOUT 34 MILES AWAY. THE 10 NEAREST AREAS HOLD 141,346 ACRES. EVERY ONE OF THEM STANDS TO LOSE ITS ONLY FEDERAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied I go out to watch wildlife and birds, and what I look for lives in unbroken habitat. The agency measured what fragmentation costs and then set the finding aside. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 2: Carbon is stated and dropped The standing forests where I watch wildlife are doing quiet work the whole time, holding carbon. The agency states what these lands store and then drops the analysis. 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 DEIS concludes these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of harvest and roading. I ask that the agency quantify the change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative. Issue 4: The agency's own assessments predict harm to 327 protected species I spend my time looking for wildlife in these forests, and the rarest of it is exactly what the agency's own assessments say this action is likely to harm. The agency's 428-page draft biological assessment closes: "Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will increase the likelihood of road construction and timber harvests occurring in locations previously considered inventoried roadless areas. In many cases the Forest Service anticipates this increased activity to adversely affect some ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitats." The DEIS tallies the determinations: "may affect, likely to adversely affect" for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats. I ask that the agency disclose, species by species, how the likely adverse effects its own biological assessments identify will be avoided or mitigated, and that ESA consultation be completed and published before any final rule. Issue 5: Foreseeable plan amendments are placed beyond scope I want my kids to have this, and what happens after this rule is the part that reaches them. The agency admits the next step and refuses to analyze it. 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. 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, Grace Nordhoff Seattle, WA 98115