Read the comments.

Dear USDA Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public forest lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk, and threaten the clean drinking water for hundreds of communities. Allowing new roads into these currently roadless areas will degrade fish and wildlife habitats, and also negatively impact the recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. I choose to hike and to birdwatch in these roadless areas because they are roadless. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1. This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely used. The USFS already has a huge maintenance backlog for the roads it currently has. Roads should be decommissioned especially where they threaten to slide and where road sediments degrade streams. 2. Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible public policy. Our National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads harm habitat. Roads spread invasive species, fragment connected wildlife habitats and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits while also compounding biodiversity losses and the climate crises is foolish policy. 3. Despite the claims that more roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the number and density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Firefighting resources need to be focused on the wildland-urban interface where people, homes, and roads already exist, not in the backcountry and currently roadless places. 4. The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrates that the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. This effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. 5. A long history of overharvest, reckless road building, and poor planning before the 2001 Roadless Rule showed that irresponsible National Forest managers in individual National Forests, using exact planning and management acts cited in the recent rule change announcement (“the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the associated land management planning processes and plans”) needed a national mandate prohibiting road construction and timber harvest in their inventoried roadless areas to curtail their abuses. The necessity for Roadless Rule’s broad prohibitions has in no way diminished, in fact the protections have become even more essential. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Following logging mature forests, a young even-aged stand of trees takes its place. This stand is a fire prone forest, one that will be a greater threat to ignite for generations. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a loss for current and future generations. Leave the Roadless Rule is place. Sincerely, Aram Falsafi, Washington State

I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. More roads in the backcountry means more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. The public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. More roads in the backcountry means more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. The public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

Dear USDA Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public forest lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk, and threaten the clean drinking water for hundreds of communities. Allowing new roads into these currently roadless areas will degrade fish and wildlife habitats, and also negatively impact the recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. I choose to hike and to birdwatch in these roadless areas because they are roadless. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1. This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely used. The USFS already has a huge maintenance backlog for the roads it currently has. Roads should be decommissioned especially where they threaten to slide and where road sediments degrade streams. 2. Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible public policy. Our National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads harm habitat. Roads spread invasive species, fragment connected wildlife habitats and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits while also compounding biodiversity losses and the climate crises is foolish policy. 3. Despite the claims that more roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the number and density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Firefighting resources need to be focused on the wildland-urban interface where people, homes, and roads already exist, not in the backcountry and currently roadless places. 4. The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrates that the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. This effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. 5. A long history of overharvest, reckless road building, and poor planning before the 2001 Roadless Rule showed that irresponsible National Forest managers in individual National Forests, using exact planning and management acts cited in the recent rule change announcement (“the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the associated land management planning processes and plans”) needed a national mandate prohibiting road construction and timber harvest in their inventoried roadless areas to curtail their abuses. The necessity for Roadless Rule’s broad prohibitions has in no way diminished, in fact the protections have become even more essential. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Following logging mature forests, a young even-aged stand of trees takes its place. This stand is a fire prone forest, one that will be a greater threat to ignite for generations. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a loss for current and future generations. Leave the Roadless Rule is place. Sincerely, Amy Hamblin.

I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1.This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. 2.Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible policy. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. 3.Despite the claims that roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. 4.The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrate the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations.

I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. More roads in the backcountry means more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. The public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

Dear USDA Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public forest lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk, and threaten the clean drinking water for hundreds of communities. Allowing new roads into these currently roadless areas will degrade fish and wildlife habitats, and also negatively impact the recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forest lands provide. I choose to hike and to birdwatch in these roadless areas because they are roadless. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1.This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely used. The USFS already has a huge maintenance backlog for the roads it currently has. Roads should be decommissioned especially where they threaten to slide and where road sediments degrade streams. 2.Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible public policy. Our National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads harm habitat. Roads spread invasive species, fragment connected wildlife habitats and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits while also compounding biodiversity losses and the climate crises is foolish policy. 3.Despite the claims that more roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the number and density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Firefighting resources need to be focused on the wildland-urban interface where people, homes, and roads already exist, not in the backcountry and currently roadless places. 4.The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrates that the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. This effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. 5.A long history of over harvest, reckless road building, and poor planning before the 2001 Roadless Rule showed that irresponsible National Forest managers in individual National Forests, using exact planning and management acts cited in the recent rule change announcement (“the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the associated land management planning processes and plans”) needed a national mandate prohibiting road construction and timber harvest in their inventoried roadless areas to curtail their abuses. The necessity for Roadless Rule’s broad prohibitions has in no way diminished, in fact the protections have become even more essential. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Following logging mature forests, a young even-aged stand of trees takes its place. This stand is a fire prone forest, one that will be a greater threat to ignite for generations. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a loss for current and future generations. Leave the Roadless Rule is place. Sincerely, Chris Vondrasek, Seattle, WA

I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1. This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. 2. Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible policy. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish andwildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. 3. Despite the claims that roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. 4. The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrate the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations.

I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1.This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. 2.Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible policy. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. 3.Despite the claims that roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. 4.The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrate the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations.

Dear USDA Secretary Rollins, Some ideas are simply wrong and must be reconsidered. I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public forest lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk, and threaten the clean drinking water for hundreds of communities. Allowing new roads into these currently roadless areas will degrade fish and wildlife habitats, and also negatively impact the recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. I choose to hike and to birdwatch in these roadless areas because they are roadless. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1. This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely used. The USFS already has a huge maintenance backlog for the roads it currently has. Roads should be decommissioned especially where they threaten to slide and where road sediments degrade streams. 2. Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible public policy. Our National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads harm habitat. Roads spread invasive species, fragment connected wildlife habitats and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits while also compounding biodiversity losses and the climate crises is foolish policy. 3. Despite the claims that more roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the number and density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Firefighting resources need to be focused on the wildland-urban interface where people, homes, and roads already exist, not in the backcountry and currently roadless places. 4. The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrates that the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. This effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. 5. A long history of overharvest, reckless road building, and poor planning before the 2001 Roadless Rule showed that irresponsible National Forest managers in individual National Forests, using exact planning and management acts cited in the recent rule change announcement (“theForest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the associated land management planning processes and plans”) needed a national mandate prohibiting road construction and timber harvest in their inventoried roadless areas to curtail their abuses. The necessity for Roadless Rule’s broad prohibitions has in no way diminished, in fact the protections have become even more essential. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Following logging mature forests, a young even-aged stand of trees takes its place. This stand is a fire prone forest, one that will be a greater threat to ignite for generations. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a loss for current and future generations. Leave the Roadless Rule is place. Sincerely, Thomas A. Putnam

USDA Sec Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide the camping, hiking, and fishing for my family and future generations. Sincerely Harold Richter

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. More roads in the backcountry means more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. The public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, D. Wolfe, veterans' daughter, U.S. citezen, outdoor enthusiast, temporary resident and neighbor (as are YOU) of wildlife and nature that need roadless areas for everyone's health