Read the comments.

I am writing as a public lands user, scientist 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. Please leave public lands for the animals and future generations. 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. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access. 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. The Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.) help protect these special values and need to be protected alongside all inventoried roadless areas. Choose the no action alternative.

I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a 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. 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, 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 am particularly concerned about the Boise river and want to see this area and other inventoried roadless areas protected. Maintain the roadless rule and choose no action. We do not want to see it rescinded.

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. It is crucial that federally owned land be regulated consistently and at a federal level As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity. 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. Please keep the roadless rule in place and choose the no action alternative to protect these special values.

I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member and 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. Additionally, local systems are just parts of a larger whole. Land preservation in Colorado may not immediately impact users in Arizona, but flooding and erosion will, so these systems are inherently linked. 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 am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive 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 am particularly concerned about Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) because I have an intimate knowledge of the areas. These areas are already suffering from excessive foot traffic via destroying habitat and making new trails. We need to protect them at roadless areas to protect what is left.. Maintain the roadless rule; choose the no action alternative

I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and Tribal member 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. Please do the right thing and protect our forests As a Tribal 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 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 am particularly concerned about the loss of consistent protections and want to see the roadless rule maintained because of this. Protect 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 also concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, climate resilience. 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 am particularly concerned about Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) because I do not want to see wildlife habitat and connectivity affected in this area I have intimate knowledge of. This area is important to me and I want to see other inventoried roadless areas like these protected as well. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative.

I am writing as a College student to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a College student, 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 College student, 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. 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 am particularly concerned about the Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) are because of the wildlife habitat and connectivity that these less roaded areas provide. I have intimate knowledge of this area and want to make sure invenotried roadless areas like it continue to be protected by the roadless rule. Keep the no action alternative.

I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water. 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 intimate knowledge of the Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) area and value our roadless areas for their ability to protect these resources. 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 and 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. We keep on selling and wasting our land and environments to where we are down to our last little bits of untouched lands that are trying to keep our country alive and all the wildlife and plants that live in them that are super sensitive even to a small thing of lights or roads we keep on attacking these lands more and more and not letting them recover were headed to the point of no return. We need these land to flourish and thrive to keep the American dream alive keep our country alive we should be protectors of these lands and not destructive gods willing to destroy it for the smallest thing that'll only benefit a select few. 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. Like I said above we should be protectors of these plans keeping them thriving and expanding them to help species migrate asking them to keep America thriving keep our wildlife and plants thriving. We owe it to them and mother nature. Please don't allow this i want to bring my children and grandchildren to these plans to learn to enjoy and keep them going and thriving on a way to recovering. Please don't destroy what little we have left for the future kids who will need these lands to find themselves and find a love for nature and the world around us. 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 am particularly concerned about 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.). I want to see these areas and all inventoried roadless areas continue to be protected by the rule. Choose no action.

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. Protect our public lands! I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water. 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 am particularly concerned about the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.) area and want to see these roadlesss areas and others like them protected by maintaining the rule. Choose no action.

I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, 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 am particularly concerned about the Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) area because of wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, and firefighter risk. I want to see the roadless rule continue as it is, without recission or change.

I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, 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 am particularly concerned about 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.). The eastern sierra roadless areas and indeed all roadless areas need to be protected into the future with the roadless rule. Do not take it away- choose the no action alternative.

I am writing as a Tribal member 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 Tribal member, 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 am particularly concerned about 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.). These lands are sacred and require protection. Keep the roadless rule.

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. 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. 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. 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 am particularly concerned about the loss of consistent protections for these lands and want to see the roadless rule maintained to keep these protections. We do not need more development and roads, or extraction. Choose 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 climber, 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 climber, 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 clean water. 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 Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless areas. My husband and I met climbing in the area around Bishop. A group of our friends go each year to visit and climb in these mountains. It is such a beautiful place. Please don’t let this land be marred by deforestation, environmental destruction, and pollution. Protect roadless areas with the roadless rule: choose 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. Quit destroying the planet. We have to live somewhere. I want to have children and I want them to see the beautiful things that I saw as a kid. 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 am particularly concerned about 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.) because: 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. I have an intimate knowledge of the Big Bend roadless areas and want to see them and all other roadless areas protected by the roadless rule into the future. Keep it as is.

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. It is absolutely vital that public lands are preserved for nature, wildlife, flora, and the overall ecosystem. 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. 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 am particularly concerned about the loss of consistent protections and want to see the roadless rule protected so that we do not lose another layer. Keep the roadless rule with 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 fellow of earth, 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. this is ecocide, a crime against gods creation As a human, 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 the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I am particularly concerned about the loss of consistent protections because of the loss of climate resilience. We need to protect 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 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. 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 am particularly concerned about the loss of consistent protections for wildlife habitat and connectivity. We must maintain this layer of protection. Keep the roadless rule with the no action alternative.

I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. 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. These public lands are meant to be preserved as sacred for future generations. They are meant to be kept wild and roadless, for the wild animals to live in peace and citizens to enjoy. We must hold these wilderness areas as an inheritance for future generations. These wild lands must be kept intact and protected permanently. Once roads, motorized use, or logging are allowed in these places, the wilderness character that makes them eligible is destroyed, and we cant vote it back. The loss will be permanent! 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. 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, 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 am particularly concerned about the Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas because of the wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, solitude and landscape connectivity values there. I have an intimate knowledge of the Wilderness areas which have provided me with joy and education my entire life. My family immigrated to Lone Pine from Mexico three generations ago. Our family burial plot is in Lone Pine and I feel very connected to the area. I have enjoyed many of the wilderness areas for hiking and camping. Protect roadless area by keeping the rule with the no action alternative! As a California native, I have enjoyed many of the wilderness areas for hiking and camping. To imagine these areas being pillaged by special interest groups makes me nauseous. The damage to existing wild areas has made the land inhospitable, the people poor and sick, and the animals either flee or die. Please, do not allow them to hurt the land anywhere else!! Protect our wilderness areas!!