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."

Hi, I am a snow scientist, avid recreationist, and resident of Mammoth Lakes in the Eastern Sierra. I am writing today to tell you that I strongly oppose the proposed recission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). I am urging the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule by selecting Alternative 1. I urge the Forest Service to reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2, as well as any alternative that substantially weakens protections. As a snow scientist who works in water resources, I feel particularly qualified to mention that these roadless areas serve as critical sources of clean water for millions of Americans, protecting watersheds from sediment and pollution [Della, Sala (2011).] As a regular citizen, I am concerned because these roadless areas provide the quiet backcountry experiences that I value with family and friends. Many of these areas I have been hiking, skiing, climbing, fishing, and camping in since I was a child and I would be devastated to lose them: Wheeler Ridge and Pine Creek Canyon, Laurel and McGee, Nevahbe Ridge, Saddlebag and Tioga, The Hoover area, deep in the San Joaquin, and I live near the Sherwins in Mammoth Lakes. These areas support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless rule already allows important wildfire work - I believe I read that nearly 250k acres have been treated in California's roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections that have been in place for multiple decades now would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging when, quite frankly, agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. I want my future children to be able to enjoy these areas as I did. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

"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, 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."

Dear Mr. Schultz: As a resident, I respectfully direct the Department's attention to the body of ecological research demonstrating that road construction in previously roadless forest landscapes produces landscape-scale effects that cannot be reversed within any planning horizon relevant to current decision-making. I have lived in the community of Swall Meadows at the base of the Wheeler Ridge since 2005. I chose to live here for it's remove from busy urban life, it's dark silent nights, and for the proximity to wildness. I can walk out my front door into a wild landscape on uncrowded, undeveloped foot trails shared with my neighbors and the multitude of wildlife that abounds here, including mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, pinyon jays, rattle snakes, quail, red tail hawks, osprey, and bald eagles I remember the big winter about three years back when we were snowed in because the roads had not been plowed. I strapped on my cross country skis and skied out the Pole Line Road heading towards Sand Canyon. I was just about to turn around when I heard these odd whuffs. I looked up the canyon to see three large, full racked bucks bounding down canyon through chest deep to them snow. Each time they landed they exhaled a great whuff. They turned in front of me then bounded away. It was thrilling If this area becomes open to extraction and road building I and my community will lose the wild remoteness we have come to cherish and rely on for our mental health. It will become a popular place for OHV riders as it is now popular with mountain bikers, hikers, and back country skiers. We will lose the silence to motorized vehicles, and a fragile ecosystem will be damaged by heavy vehicular traffic, and silent snow days impacted by snow mobile two stroke engine noise and smell. The bucks I marveled at would have been deterred by snowmobile traffic and their already narrow migration corridor will become fragmented. The grey and red foxes I hear calling for mates at the end of summer will lose their ranges and the Pinyon Jay population will further diminish, just like the night hawks. Regarding the Wheeler Ridge in the Inyo National Forest, California: Rescission of the Roadless Rule threatens the ecological network linking Wheeler Ridge and Nevahbe Ridge (302 acres) in Inyo National Forest. The roadless condition of both IRAs currently protects connectivity for 22 shared species, including imperiled species: Owens Pupfish (G1), Pinyon Jay (G3), Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (T2), Sierra Nevada Red Fox (T1), Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (G2), Whitebark Pine (G3). Removing protections from either area degrades the network for both. Road construction in Wheeler Ridge degrades habitat connectivity for species shared with Nevahbe Ridge, 8.3 miles away. Equally, road construction in Nevahbe Ridge degrades the network for species shared with Wheeler Ridge. The 22 shared species — including Owens Pupfish (G1), Pinyon Jay (G3), Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (T2), Sierra Nevada Red Fox (T1), Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (G2), Whitebark Pine (G3) — depend on both areas remaining roadless. Fragmenting either area harms both. The DEIS violates NEPA's cumulative effects mandate if it treats Wheeler Ridge and Nevahbe Ridge as independent analytical units. These IRAs share 22 species across 8.3 miles in Inyo National Forest, including Owens Pupfish (G1), Pinyon Jay (G3), Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (T2), Sierra Nevada Red Fox (T1), Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (G2), Whitebark Pine (G3). Segmenting this connected system into separate analyses understates impacts and forecloses informed decision-making — the precise outcome NEPA was enacted to prevent. "Incorporating effects of human-made barriers in isolation-by-distance regressions, Epps et al. (2005) found evidence that fenced highways cause a rapid decrease of gene flow between populations of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsonii) in southern California." — Corlatti et al. 2009, Conservation Biology (review citing Epps et al. 2005), 2005 “One of the most severe consequences of habitat loss due to road construction is the creation of isolated pockets of habitat that cannot support viable populations in the long term. Reductions in the range of species may decrease probability of their successful movement between habitat patches, which affects gene flow. Genetic theory suggests that the reduction of gene flow between subpopulations may lead to greater inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity within fragments, the raw material that allows populations to evolve in response to environmental changes. — Corlatti et al. 2009, Conservation Biology, 2009 (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01162.x)” The forests protected by this rule aren't in decline because of it — they're intact because of it. That's the relevant fact here. Hopefully, CommentID: RLC-20261002-7K8JZJ

"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, recreationist, Park ranger to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Park ranger, 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 Park ranger, 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, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, 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.), 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 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 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. 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, clean water, soil erosion, 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 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). I am particularly concerned about recreation access because privatizing our public lands for exploration mining and other commercial interests greatly limits access. I have recreated in these areas for many year; enjoying the solitude they offer. The public benefits greatly by having public lands available to hit ""reset"" on their otherwise busy lives. 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 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. Roadless areas protect fragmented wildlife, water and trees we need for CO2 absorption. 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, clean water, soil erosion, 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 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). I am particularly concerned about The claim that putting more roads in roadless areas will assist in accessing forest fires is a specious argument when the primary vector for fires is human ignition and the majority of fires started by humans happen on the sides of roads. Roadless areas are special for renewing a sense of inner peace and communing with wild nature. They offer habitat to many species of birds and animals. They protect our water. They offer corridors for wildlife to maintain biodiverse and not become genetically fragmented. As Wallace Stegner, the preeminent American writer wrote, ""Something will have gone out of use as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last virgin forests to be turned into comic books and plastic cigarette cases; if we drive the few remaining members of the wild species into zoos or to extinction; if we pollute the last clear air and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved roads through the last of the silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste."". 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 child to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Child, 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 will disrupt animals and their migrations more than they already do, and species biodiversity will go downhill. 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 Child, 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. No. 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, climate resilience, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration. 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 Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless area(s). As a young lady who is in love with wildlife and every species on the planet, I would prefer if we didn't continue to make actions that harmed their habitats, ecosystems, and own populations. The only way I can help protect the things I love are by speaking on forms like this, because people constantly tell me "You're just a kid." And "We can't do anything." Friends of the Inyo, I am now your biggest supporter. 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."