Read the comments.

Roadless Rule Public Comment Template Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation Docket # FS-2025-0001-223869 I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. I am Maia Grudzien, patriot residing in Washington State, who frequently enjoys our public lands. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. Our public lands are treasures that cannot be replaced when they are lost to private corporate interests. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above;

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. My name is Sam Rich. I live in Washington state and as an environmental scientist and private citizen I utilize our national forests on a regular basis. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. The elk, salmon, steelhead, and trout I care about would likely steeply drop in numbers if these rules change. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. I am deeply concerned and upset that public lands are facing policy change for reasonable cause. Sam Rich

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. The few remaining areas of wild land need to stay wild for future hikers, campers, nature lovers and nature itself before we destroy everything in a power play for greed. Rebecca Whitley

Roadless Rule Public Comment Template Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation Docket # FS-2025-0001-223869 I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. Lisa Lybarger Roadless Area Conservation Docket # FS-2025-0001-223869 I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66)

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. I am a hiker, camper, and avid recreational visitor to public lands and forests. I live in Portland, Oregon, and have spent my life visiting the rich and unique forests of this region, especially those in and around Olympic National Park. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In the Pacific Northwest, we are not as protected from wildfires as we once were, and we cannot risk any law which has the potential to create further vulnerabilities. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. Our forests and rivers are inextricably linked, and to damage the forests means losing our already threatened salmon. The salmon sustain this region and have for years beyond human comprehension. We have already risked their total demise - the consequences of ensuring it would be unthinkable. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route power lines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. I want to be able to teach my children responsible stewardship and love of forests while they are still healthy. We can make sure they stay that way by selecting the No Action alternative. Thank you, M.A.

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. I am an outdoors enthusiast and find our earth to be the most exhilarating space rock and find it troubling that it's not being cared for and protected. I grew up in Utah camping with my father in the High Uintahs, where we would go fishing together. I grew up watching and seeing beavers making dams, deer, elk, bobcats to name a handful, on these trips. Then, when older, began backpacking near Ogden, Wasatch mountain range, Escalante, Zion NP, and Havasupie. Then, moved further West and slept under the stars in the Sierra Nevada's falling a sleep to frogs croaking. Now days, i find Goat Rocks, Indian Heaven Wilderness, Mount Hood and the Blue Mountains as my go backpacking in the Pacific North West. All these places have unique roadless wilderness areas for true exploration, pristine waters, wildlife, solitude and breath taking views. Free from roads, city lights, mining noises, and pollution. Here are the facts: The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. The Snake River and the Columbia River Basin area is seeing lower than ever Salmon runs. This is because of toxins in the water. Also, the Bull Run watershed area provides water to millions. Let's continue to protect these water ways! Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. The time in NOW to continue to preserve these wilderness areas to be free from easy access from people starting fires, adding toxins into water ways, power lines to be erected, and destruction of wildlife habitat. We need to be stewards of the planet, our lovely exhilarating land, for our future generations today. DeAnn Jeremy

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. I am a hiker from Kansas. I visit National Forest and public lands as often as possible to hike, take pictures, go bird watching, and unplug! The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. The roadless rule preserves precious ecosystems, water sources, and provides a refuge from development and urbanization. Leaving these pristine areas untouched gives us cleaner air and water.

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. I care about all animals and this would devastate our ecosystems. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. Public lands should matter to everyone as losing the ecosystem, wildlife, and nature will cause downstream impacts to our country in the worst way. Thank you. Christie Branum

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. My name is Pauline Faye and I live about 1 hour from The San Mateo Wilderness. I have been awestruck with the beauty of old growth Coast Live Oak and Sycamore trees, waterfalls and creek that show the natural part of California that has been lost to too much development. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. The San Mateo Wilderness is home to Mountain Lions, Coyotes, Bobcats, deer and Steelhead trout that need this environment to survive. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. This wilderness is a small glimpse of California as it has always has been and needs to be preserved for generations to come. Pauline Faye

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the Department of Agriculture to retain the rule by selecting the No Action alternative. My name is Jamie Lurtz, I live in Las Vegas NV. I love being able to hike in Red Rock Canyon. The Forest Service already carries a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly 6.9 billion dollars for its roads and bridges, and it is funded to maintain only about a fifth of the more than 370,000 miles of road it already manages. This rescission opens up to 18.2 million acres to new road construction the rule currently prohibits. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is fiscally reckless and shifts the long term cost onto taxpayers. The rescission is justified as a wildfire measure, but the record does not support that. The agency's own analysis shows only about 5 percent of high hazard roadless areas have received fuels treatment since 2014, which reflects a budget and staffing shortfall, not a barrier created by the rule. The proposed rule also concedes that greater access can increase human caused ignition potential, and most wildfires on Forest Service land are started by people. Removing road protections is more likely to raise fire risk than lower it. In 2001 the Department found that a national prohibition was the best means to protect these areas, after receiving more than a million public comments. The Department must give a reasoned explanation for reversing that longstanding position, and must account for the reliance interests built up over 25 years of protection, including those of communities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and downstream water users. The proposed rule does not adequately do so. These areas protect 354 municipal watersheds and supply drinking water to roughly 25 million people, and they provide habitat for more than 220 species listed as threatened or endangered and 1,930 sensitive species. Roadless areas also buffer designated Wilderness, and stripping protection from the lands around Wilderness degrades those places even though the Wilderness boundaries never move. In Red Rock Canyon we have wild burros. It would be terrible if they had no where to go. Finally, this rescission would make it far easier to route powerlines, pipelines, and water conveyance through roadless corridors by removing the road construction barrier that has kept most such infrastructure out. The Department cites Executive Order 14154 on energy as a reason for the action. The public deserves a full analysis of the industrial infrastructure this could enable, not an assurance that the effects would be modest. For these reasons, I ask the Department to: retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action alternative; fully analyze the fiscal, wildfire, water, wildlife, and infrastructure effects described above; and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before any decision is made. Future generations need to be able to see all that our wild country has to offer. It needs to remain intact for everyone to enjoy. It would be heartbreaking to loose that. Thank you, Jamie Lurtz