“Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing in opposition to the…”

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 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: Elk survival, in the agency's own citation I watch wildlife, and the animals I go looking for need country roads have not reached. The agency's own citation makes that point better than I can. 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. No population-level effect on big game is projected anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity. Issue 3: 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. Not may: will increase the likelihood, and the agency anticipates the harm. The phrase "likely to adversely affect" appears more than 150 times across the USFWS assessment alone, and the proposal identifies mitigation for none of it. 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: 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. 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, Matt Walters Seattle, WA