Read the comments.

"I am writing as a public lands user and recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that Please leave the land to the people, stop making bad decisions. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Our lands Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a Civilian to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Civilian, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a Civilian, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Climate change Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a widland firefighter to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a wildland firefighter, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that Overall, these zones are more safe without human interaction and need to remain wild. As a wildland firefighter, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I also want to emphasize that I firsthand deal with wildfires started by heavy equipment like the ones that would be utilized to construct the roads built in the wilderness. Furthermore, having access to these zones does not mean we will be better equipped to mitigate wildfires when they start because roads will be blocked by the heavy equipment that started them and that’s the reality. Additionally, more public lives will be at risk when they have access to these zones and fires start in these zones. Now it firefighters are committed to go and rescue said individuals who otherwise wouldn’t be there. I am particularly concerned about firefighter risk. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Aplet, Hartger & Dietz (2026) analyzed 32 years of contiguous-U.S. wildfire data and found ignition density of 7.99 fires/1,000 ha within 50m of roads vs. 1.97 in inventoried roadless areas These roadless areas are important to me because These areas hold so much value as wildlife habitats and contribute to the natural filtration of drinking water that flows downstream to thousands of people. Also, these zones provide wild sanctuaries that help people relief the stress of city life. We can’t forget we need wild places to escape to help reset our bodily systems. I also want to share this personal perspective: The areas described that would be potentially impacted by eliminating the Roadless Rule Act would not positively impact society as a whole. Let alone increasing wildfire danger by introducing more ignition sources, eliminating wildlife habitat and affecting clean water sources, it would eliminate wild places us as humans need to balance ourselves in this ever increasing busy and crowded world. It’s being forgotten that we as humans need to disconnect to reconnect from time to time. Let’s try and remember that by keeping it wild and roadless. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and Human to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that I strongly oppose your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and save forests. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless. This rule is vital for protecting our national forests, water supply, and wildlife habitats. Allowing road construction and logging in these areas would have devastating environmental consequences for years to come. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential forests. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. I urge you to uphold the Roadless Rule and protect these irreplaceable landscapes, the wildlife, habitats, recreational spaces and clean water that these beloved intact forests provide, and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I also want to emphasize that Rolling back the Roadless Rule will not protect communities from wildfire and may in fact lead to more wildfires. Wildfires are four times as likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless forest tracts and 90 percent of all wildfires nationwide started within half a mile of a road. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, climate resilience, recreation access, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.), Copper Mountain Roadless Area in Elko County roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Humboldt-Toiyabe and Hoover Wilderness areas are where I go to be a good steward of something precious. The Virginia Lakes area, Saddlebag Lake, the Twenty Lakes Basin, the Mono Craters, and the many other roadless areas that stem off Highway 395 are where I hike, recreate, and photograph nature, wildlife, rivers, and untouched landscapes. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of that at risk, and I am filing this comment in opposition to Docket FS-2025-0001. The agency's own record on wildfire should stop this proposal cold. The DEIS states: "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 agency now justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds, claiming that road access will help control fire. Its own words say the opposite. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The forests I use, the Inyo and the Humboldt-Toiyabe, hold enormous portions of that landscape, including the Mono Craters at 7,115 acres and the Log Cabin Saddlebag area at 15,165 acres. Opening roads into these places does not reduce ignitions; the agency's own DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data its own record contains. The state-by-state approach this proposal revives has already failed in court. The record itself acknowledges that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." That was the rationale the last time the agency tried to replace a national rule with local decision-making, and the Ninth Circuit found it wanting. The Humboldt-Toiyabe alone holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, each one a sky island rising from the Great Basin desert with its own ecology, its own water, its own wildlife, including Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat. Piecemeal state processes cannot protect values that are national in scale and ecologically connected across state lines. How does this proposal avoid the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit already identified, and what specific mechanism prevents incremental local decisions from eroding roadless values that the national rule was designed to hold intact? The regulatory flexibility certification in this proposal cannot be squared with the numbers beside it. 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. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The outfitters and guides who operate permits in places like the areas I photograph, where untouched landscapes are the product being sold, stand to lose real receipts, and the certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining those actually holding permits in the affected areas. The agency must withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating inside the potentially affected roadless areas. This administration invited reliance interests when it solicited "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 one such interest. I have built my recreation around these roadless areas. I photograph wildlife and untouched landscapes precisely because the rule has kept them that way. Under the legal standards that govern agency change of course, reliance interests created by a prior rule must be identified and weighed, not solicited and then set aside. The agency must account for the interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it can lawfully proceed. I ask that the agency deny the rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in force. Sincerely, Erin Morris Carlsbad, California

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The alpine lakes and wildlife corridors along Highway 395 are what I keep coming back to. I backpack and hike in roadless areas throughout this corridor, camping in the Saddlebag Lake area, in Virginia Lakes within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and in the Twenty Lakes Basin. I photograph what I find there: landscapes, alpine lakes, rivers, wildlife. The areas I visit include the Hoover - Virginia Lks roadless area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe, as well as the Log Cabin Saddlebag, Independence Creek, Rock Creek West, Mono Craters, and Cahuilla Mountain roadless areas in the Inyo and San Bernardino National Forests. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. The Humboldt-Toiyabe is the largest national forest in the lower 48, scattered across mountain ranges that rise from the Great Basin like sky islands, each with its own water, its own ecology, its own wildlife. It holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, and verified species there include Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The landscapes and wildlife I photograph depend on the ecological integrity that the roadless designation protects. Rescission would put all of that at risk, and the agency's own record does not support the move. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a rationale, but the agency's own analysis undermines that justification. The record states: "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." That is the agency's finding, not mine. The DEIS Table 21 data on fire density reinforces it. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from these findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data its own environmental review produced. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The record itself states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system. The agency must explain, in direct response to this comment, how expanding a road network with that backlog behind it is justified when the agency's own analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The regulatory flexibility analysis compounds this problem. The agency's record acknowledges it: "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 certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by averaging losses across every small firm in the relevant sector nationally, rather than assessing the guides, outfitters, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. Some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. The certification should be withdrawn and replaced with an analysis centered on the businesses actually operating in these roadless areas. Finally, the proposal itself 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 such an interest. I have structured my backpacking, hiking, and photography around the protections the 2001 rule provides for the areas along Highway 395 where I travel. An agency changing course is required to assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before taking any further action on this proposal. Sincerely, James Jenkins Carlsbad, California

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that If we lose these public spaces, we may not get them back, and these ecosystems and landscapes will continue to be under increasing pressure and at risk. They are such a gift to society and a place of love and life - we need to help more people learn to steward these lands, not continue to extract from them. Long term humanity at stake in the values underpinning the direction we will go here. Please listen and fight for what is right. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Meanwhile, it would expose these already vulnerable aspects of the mountains to further degradation and extraction. We are in a time when our ecosystems and water resources are changing rapidly and the systems we depend on are fundamentally changing. We need to start paying attention, preserving landscape connectivity and fostering stewardship of these lands, rather than open them up to even more pressure and development - or we will lose fundamental life lines to human society, livelihood, and vitality These roadless areas are important to me because I've backpacked extensively through these areas and to lose these spaces to further development would be truly tragic. They are known across the world as some of the most beautiful mountain landscapes in the world. I am a graduate student studying vitality in the Sierra and interview after interview, I speak with mountaineers, explorers and scientists who reflect on the fact that there is no place like the Sierra. That when they are in other mountains, they are thinking of the Sierra. It is magnetic and has for centuries pulled people in from across the world and inspired people to develop a deeper relationship with the Earth. These landscape, this superpower, is essential to not just preserve, but harness with all our might right now. We are so lucky to know and serve this land, and it would be a historical tragedy to lose it. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. As a person fortunate enough to have a mountain cabin bordering Yosemite in INYO county. I can not stress enough the importance of leaving this land alone. It is a pristine place that should remain untouched except by anyone who can walk in carefully and thoughtfully. Have you not seen Ansel Adams photographs? This area is special and untouched for a reason. The beauty is unsurpassed anywhere else and protected for a reason. It is for future generations and our future selves who can return to these areas to see them again virtually unchanged. It is like visiting a loved one who is always there. Thinking of building roads in this area would require great destruction to what end? Ruining so much of the natural wonder would be a great loss. The roads would only lead to more destruction, let us not kid ourselves. These roads would have the potential to bring commercial endeavors to a wider stance and continue the destruction. These roads are not necessary or wanted. The protection created by Lincoln in 1864 creating the Yosemite Grant act to protect Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove for public use and preservation then became a national part in 1890 over one hundred thirty five years ago for the sanity of the human race. It was not to create destruction by building roads for some kind of made up fire use. We all know we can not trust this administration to do the right thing. If it is still necessary ten years from now we can reconsider otherwise there won't be a ten years from now to preserve for our world. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a business owner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. These stats speak for themselves that a road could cause more unnatural wildfires. Please do not make roads into Yosemite! Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity, Really looking for natural resources when renewables elsewhere make more sense.. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about biodiversity conservation, wildfire safety, clean water protection, and climate resilience. I can not imagine having more access than already exists without destroying nature. Please do not touch Yosemite or nearby areas because these areas. They have increasing encroachment by man while Preservationists are here for a reason, to protect us from ourselves. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless area(s). Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, Tribal member, scientist, Biologist, Horticulturist, Invasive Species and Forestry Expert to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, business owner, Pissed Off Citizen, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Devestating environmental consequences if this rule is rescinded. More invasive species in untouched areas. More roads means more people ergo more pollution means increased animal death from accidents or trigger happy rednecks. Roads mean development, that means gas stations and hotels and more water use, more pesticides, loss of biodiversity and on and on. I cannot express my anger and frustration with these facist capitalist cowards that want to see the earth and everything that calls it home destroyed if it means profit, and perpetuation of some bullshit evil white christian nationalist agenda. These people are evil cowards sent to do nothing but destroy and tear down everything decent and positive. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a Tribal member, community member, recreator, business owner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. More roads will increase logging of our old growth which will means poorly managed matchstick forests that burn like gas. More logging means hotter temperatures from loss of shade. This will also increase flooding and water loss through evaporation. The ignorant scum to reverse this no nothing about it and they dont care to. All they see is the potential profit and none of the harm they are causing. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). SAVE THE ROADLESS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK MIKE LEE FUCK DONALD TRUMP FUCK JD VANCE FUCK MAGA. LOVE EARTH. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. You dont have the right to steal our public lands. You dont have the right to take that away from wildlife, and especially not to sell it off for corporate interests. Part of what makes our nation great is our stewardship over the beauty of this land, and repealing the roadless rule will be a knife in the heart of our country. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. As a citizen of the mountain west, every year the fires get worse and worse. We need to do everything we can to mitigate the human contribution to more of these starting. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about If we destroy these habitats the damage will be irreversible. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Rescinding the roadless rule will likely cause direct harm to sensitive and vulnerable plant, animal and human communities. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless area(s). These areas are special they are home to many, and are places of peace and solace. They deserve to be protected. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, Mental Health Clinician to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, Mental Health Clinician, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Maintaining public land for the public is also suicide prevention. Access to public lands are critical to the mental health of community members from all walks of life and professions. Veterinarians who provide general and critical ER services to your animal companions are people who access the forest as part of coping with a career that increases suicidal risk. The same for human medical providers: doctors, ER nurses, emergency service workers, first responders, and especially to forest service workers who dedicate their lives to ensuring recreational access.As an individual having grown up in the midwest and east coast, there is no such thing as public land. What a shame to future generations, whose right it is to experience autonomy and freedom in the outdoors. The USA is one of few places in the world that offers wild camping, which folks from all over the world pay substantial currency in ecotourism to experience. The Roadless Rule will undoubtedly jeopardize the peace and freedom there is in the forest, and this will also be detrimental to wildlife species which are vital to human existence. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, Mental Health Clinician, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire increases risk of health issues through daily smoke inhalation, which will increase need for use of health insurance in a system thats already severely comprimised. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity, Because all human life relies on the millimons of other living organisms, aka the web of life, all of these values are at risk. One shift to one will ultimately shift all the others, nothing living is fully isolated. The impacts will show generations later,well after the decision makers today areno longer living.Approving the Roadless Rule should allow all future generations to form a class action suit against those making decisions today. Forward thinking and rationing resources that are not infinite is a noble act of humanity at large.. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about Future impacts this rule will have on future generations because all of our children and grandchildren are counting on us to think about whats left for them. I completed the Pacific Crest Trail in 201, and what a remarkable privilege it was to experience the migration from South to North, just like wild animals do each year as the seasons change. The Inyo National Forest and wilderness areas throughout are in comparison to the beauty of mountains in the Swiss and Julian Alps. Theres no other place in the country with the same rugged beauty as the Eastern Sierras. People travel worldwide to experience these forests and mountains, without roads.

"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, Landscape photographer to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. As well meaning as local jurisdictions may be, not having standards and oversights in place leaves the door too open for unfortunate and shortsighted decisions that a could lead to irreparable damage to our wonderful natural resources. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. The claim that more roads in remote areas will reduce fires is just bad science. If history is any guide those who advance that idea as an excuse may just be using it as a blanket for their own agendas. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about I have been specifically been in love with the open grandeur of the Eastern Sierra for nearly 70 years and have likewise introduced my children and now grandchildren to it. They also love the experience and pretty much live for the times they can be there. It is important to the human soul to have places like this to retreat to. The idea of having this precious human resource be at the whim of local planing and/or sold to the highest bidder is sickening. I believe that it is the job of government to protect us. Please oppose this so my children and grandchildren will be still be able to enjoy the remaining wilderness as I have been privileged to. These areas are as close to Heaven as any place on earth to me. And being there may be as close as one can actually come to God. It feels like that to me and I’m not alone. Recharging in the wilderness may not be a human right but it feels as if it should be. The wildnesses is a sacred trust. Please protect it. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, scientist, wildlife biologist and environmental educator to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, wildlife biologist and environmental educator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Roads increase the likelihood of invasive grasses and other plants entering our forests, many of which are highly flammable. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a wildlife biologist and environmental educator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. The Roadless Rule protects old growth forests which are much more resilient to fire and burn at lower intensities when fires do occur. There are ways to manage these remote areas with prescribed burns and thinning on a case by case basis without removing the Roadless Rule completely. The USFS is already struggling to manage the millions of acres outside these areas, so our tax dollars should prioritize fire prevention there first. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about it opens the door to logging for the sake of profit and not for forest health. I work with the Forest Service and understand that the hands off preservation approach does not work. Our forests need to be managed, just like they were by indigenous people for hundreds of years. However, they need to be managed sustainably and thoughtfully and rescinding the Roadless Rule feels like a shortsighted way to over-thin our forests for timber which will ultimately lead to higher intensity fires in younger, planted forest stands. At the very least, old growth trees must be retained. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

I am writing as a recreationist, scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about Wildlife habitat. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative.

I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about climate resilience. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about our public lands contain sensitive habitats and quite literally lifesaving species. Our lives depend on it. These are beautiful wild places that should remain wild for humans and animal species alike to recreate, survive, and thrive without construction noise and pollution. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative.

"I am writing as a naturalist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, climate resilience, recreation access. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about resending the roadless rule would result in the ability to build on our wild public lands, killing species and reducing the recreation in wild spaces on OUR public lands! Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, business owner, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. This will destroy vital natural resources permanently. We will never recover as a nation. There’s a reason America is stronger than any other country in the world. And it is secretly our public lands. Without them and the economy they provide to our moneys and metal health, we will be in danger of spiraling regression. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, business owner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. I live in Bishop, CA and work for the highway. (DOT) we have had 4 dangerous and large wildfires in 4 years, and all of them were started in proximity to the highway. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, clean water, soil erosion, recreation access, firefighter risk. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about Trash. I have been in the backcountry for a great percentage of the last two years. I swear to you that the habitats that are in danger from this reversal are dire. You are playing a dangerous game by even considering the reversal. If you look at a map of all the wildfires in America, they are all in proximity to a roadway. It makes no sense to reverse a rule that is literally protecting our sensitive habitats, public lands, animals, and natural places, places that make America truly great. You must reconsider, no amount of money or other kind of value can equal the incredible resource. We have as Americans in these roadless places. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."