“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: 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 trips into these areas year after year, counting on the protection that keeps 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 shapes every trip I plan. If 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 itself 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. Sincerely