Read the comments.

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to retain the rule. National forests are an important part of my life. I spend considerable time hiking, skiing, camping, and exploring the Coronado and Coconino National Forests in Arizona and the White River National Forest in Colorado. My opposition to rescission is based particularly on four concerns: watersheds, wildfire, costs, and the availability of targeted alternatives. Watersheds. Protecting western watersheds should be a primary reason to retain the Roadless Rule. Roadless forests capture snow and rainfall, filter water, stabilize soils, and limit erosion and sedimentation. These functions are especially important in the arid West. The forested mountains of the Coronado and Coconino rise above much drier landscapes, while high-elevation forests in Colorado accumulate snow that supplies communities, agriculture, rivers, and ecosystems far downstream. Road construction and associated logging can increase erosion and sedimentation and fragment intact watersheds. At a time of persistent drought, higher temperatures, and increasing demands on limited western water supplies, we should be protecting these natural systems, not weakening them. The Forest Service should fully account for the value of the watershed services provided by roadless areas and the long-term costs of degrading them. Wildfire. I agree that reducing wildfire risk and restoring forest health are urgent priorities, but the Forest Service should demonstrate that rescinding the Roadless Rule would actually accomplish those goals. The existing rule already allows road construction in some circumstances to address fire risk and allows thinning of young trees to reduce hazardous fuels. Roads can also increase human access and opportunities for human-caused ignitions; research cited by the Grand Canyon Trust finds fires are substantially more likely to start in areas with roads. Limited wildfire-management resources should be directed to treatments demonstrated to reduce risks to communities, homes, and infrastructure. The Forest Service should show that opening millions of roadless acres to additional roads and logging would reduce wildfire risk more effectively than strategically located treatments, particularly near the wildland-urban interface. Costs. The Forest Service already manages more than 371,000 miles of roads and faces nearly $5 billion in deferred transportation maintenance. Adding roads to a system the agency already struggles to maintain is fiscally irresponsible. New roads create continuing costs for drainage, erosion control, repairs, and eventual decommissioning. The Forest Service should account for these full life-cycle costs and explain why facilitating additional road construction makes sense when existing roads already have such a substantial maintenance backlog. Targeted alternatives. The Forest Service has not demonstrated that management problems in particular locations require rescinding protections across roughly 45 million acres nationwide. If specific roadless areas present circumstances in which existing exceptions prevent necessary wildfire mitigation, restoration, or other essential management, those circumstances should be identified and addressed specifically. If the problem is place-specific, the solution should be place-specific. The Forest Service should seriously evaluate retaining the Roadless Rule while modifying or expanding narrowly defined exceptions where a legitimate management need can be demonstrated. It should explain why targeted changes are inadequate before choosing nationwide rescission. The Roadless Rule has protected these lands for 25 years while allowing exceptions for legitimate management needs. The Coronado, Coconino, and White River National Forests are places I return to year after year, but my opposition goes beyond personal attachment. Protecting intact watersheds, directing wildfire resources where they will be most effective, avoiding unnecessary infrastructure costs, and choosing targeted solutions over nationwide rescission are sound principles of public-land management. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to retain the rule. National forests are an important part of my life. I spend time hiking, skiing, camping, biking, birding and exploring primarily in New Mexico and Colorado National Forests. My opposition to rescission is based particularly on four concerns: watersheds, wildfire, costs, and the availability of targeted alternatives. Watersheds. Protecting western watersheds should be a primary reason to retain the Roadless Rule. Roadless forests capture snow and rainfall, filter water, stabilize soils, and limit erosion and sedimentation. These functions are especially important in the arid West. Road construction and associated logging can increase erosion and sedimentation and fragment intact watersheds. At a time of persistent drought, higher temperatures, and increasing demands on limited western water supplies, we should be protecting these natural systems, not weakening them. The Forest Service should fully account for the value of the watershed services provided by roadless areas and the long-term costs of degrading them. Wildfire. reducing wildfire risk and restoring forest health are urgent priorities, but the Forest Service should demonstrate that rescinding the Roadless Rule would actually accomplish those goals. The existing rule already allows road construction in some circumstances to address fire risk and allows thinning of young trees to reduce hazardous fuels. Roads can also increase human access and opportunities for human-caused ignitions; research cited by the Grand Canyon Trust finds fires are substantially more likely to start in areas with roads. Limited wildfire-management resources should be directed to treatments demonstrated to reduce risks to communities, homes, and infrastructure. The Forest Service should show that opening millions of roadless acres to additional roads and logging would reduce wildfire risk more effectively than strategically located treatments, particularly near the wildland-urban interface. Costs. The Forest Service already manages more than 371,000 miles of roads and faces nearly $5 billion in deferred transportation maintenance. Adding roads to a system the agency already struggles to maintain is fiscally irresponsible. New roads create continuing costs for drainage, erosion control, repairs, and eventual decommissioning. The Forest Service should account for these full life-cycle costs and explain why facilitating additional road construction makes sense when existing roads already have such a substantial maintenance backlog. Targeted alternatives. The Forest Service has not demonstrated that management problems in particular locations require rescinding protections across roughly 45 million acres nationwide. If specific roadless areas present circumstances in which existing exceptions prevent necessary wildfire mitigation, restoration, or other essential management, those circumstances should be identified and addressed specifically. If the problem is place-specific, the solution should be place-specific. The Forest Service should seriously evaluate retaining the Roadless Rule while modifying or expanding narrowly defined exceptions where a legitimate management need can be demonstrated. It should explain why targeted changes are inadequate before choosing nationwide rescission. The Roadless Rule has protected these lands for 25 years while allowing exceptions for legitimate management needs. Protecting intact watersheds, directing wildfire resources where they will be most effective, avoiding unnecessary infrastructure costs, and choosing targeted solutions over nationwide rescission are sound principles of public-land management. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to retain the rule. National forests are an important part of my life. I spend considerable time hiking, skiing, camping, and exploring the Coronado and Coconino National Forests in Arizona and the White River National Forest in Colorado. My opposition to rescission is based particularly on four concerns: watersheds, wildfire, costs, and the availability of targeted alternatives. Watersheds. Protecting western watersheds should be a primary reason to retain the Roadless Rule. Roadless forests capture snow and rainfall, filter water, stabilize soils, and limit erosion and sedimentation. These functions are especially important in the arid West. The forested mountains of the Coronado and Coconino rise above much drier landscapes, while high-elevation forests in Colorado accumulate snow that supplies communities, agriculture, rivers, and ecosystems far downstream. Road construction and associated logging can increase erosion and sedimentation and fragment intact watersheds. At a time of persistent drought, higher temperatures, and increasing demands on limited western water supplies, we should be protecting these natural systems, not weakening them. The Forest Service should fully account for the value of the watershed services provided by roadless areas and the long-term costs of degrading them. Wildfire. I agree that reducing wildfire risk and restoring forest health are urgent priorities, but the Forest Service should demonstrate that rescinding the Roadless Rule would actually accomplish those goals. The existing rule already allows road construction in some circumstances to address fire risk and allows thinning of young trees to reduce hazardous fuels. Roads can also increase human access and opportunities for human-caused ignitions; research cited by the Grand Canyon Trust finds fires are substantially more likely to start in areas with roads. Limited wildfire-management resources should be directed to treatments demonstrated to reduce risks to communities, homes, and infrastructure. The Forest Service should show that opening millions of roadless acres to additional roads and logging would reduce wildfire risk more effectively than strategically located treatments, particularly near the wildland-urban interface. Costs. The Forest Service already manages more than 371,000 miles of roads and faces nearly $5 billion in deferred transportation maintenance. Adding roads to a system the agency already struggles to maintain is fiscally irresponsible. New roads create continuing costs for drainage, erosion control, repairs, and eventual decommissioning. The Forest Service should account for these full life-cycle costs and explain why facilitating additional road construction makes sense when existing roads already have such a substantial maintenance backlog. Targeted alternatives. The Forest Service has not demonstrated that management problems in particular locations require rescinding protections across roughly 45 million acres nationwide. If specific roadless areas present circumstances in which existing exceptions prevent necessary wildfire mitigation, restoration, or other essential management, those circumstances should be identified and addressed specifically. If the problem is place-specific, the solution should be place-specific. The Forest Service should seriously evaluate retaining the Roadless Rule while modifying or expanding narrowly defined exceptions where a legitimate management need can be demonstrated. It should explain why targeted changes are inadequate before choosing nationwide rescission. The Roadless Rule has protected these lands for 25 years while allowing exceptions for legitimate management needs. The Coronado, Coconino, and White River National Forests are places I return to year after year, but my opposition goes beyond personal attachment. Protecting intact watersheds, directing wildfire resources where they will be most effective, avoiding unnecessary infrastructure costs, and choosing targeted solutions over nationwide rescission are sound principles of public-land management. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, Kristin L. Gunckel Tucson, AZ

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to retain the rule. National forests are an important part of my life. I spend considerable time hiking, skiing, camping, and exploring the Coronado and Coconino National Forests in Arizona and the White River National Forest in Colorado. My opposition to rescission is based particularly on four concerns: watersheds, wildfire, costs, and the availability of targeted alternatives. Watersheds. Protecting western watersheds should be a primary reason to retain the Roadless Rule. Roadless forests capture snow and rainfall, filter water, stabilize soils, and limit erosion and sedimentation. These functions are especially important in the arid West. The forested mountains of the Coronado and Coconino rise above much drier landscapes, while high-elevation forests in Colorado accumulate snow that supplies communities, agriculture, rivers, and ecosystems far downstream. Road construction and associated logging can increase erosion and sedimentation and fragment intact watersheds. At a time of persistent drought, higher temperatures, and increasing demands on limited western water supplies, we should be protecting these natural systems, not weakening them. The Forest Service should fully account for the value of the watershed services provided by roadless areas and the long-term costs of degrading them. Wildfire. I agree that reducing wildfire risk and restoring forest health are urgent priorities, but the Forest Service should demonstrate that rescinding the Roadless Rule would actually accomplish those goals. The existing rule already allows road construction in some circumstances to address fire risk and allows thinning of young trees to reduce hazardous fuels. Roads can also increase human access and opportunities for human-caused ignitions; research cited by the Grand Canyon Trust finds fires are substantially more likely to start in areas with roads. Limited wildfire-management resources should be directed to treatments demonstrated to reduce risks to communities, homes, and infrastructure. The Forest Service should show that opening millions of roadless acres to additional roads and logging would reduce wildfire risk more effectively than strategically located treatments, particularly near the wildland-urban interface. Costs. The Forest Service already manages more than 371,000 miles of roads and faces nearly $5 billion in deferred transportation maintenance. Adding roads to a system the agency already struggles to maintain is fiscally irresponsible. New roads create continuing costs for drainage, erosion control, repairs, and eventual decommissioning. The Forest Service should account for these full life-cycle costs and explain why facilitating additional road construction makes sense when existing roads already have such a substantial maintenance backlog. Targeted alternatives. The Forest Service has not demonstrated that management problems in particular locations require rescinding protections across roughly 45 million acres nationwide. If specific roadless areas present circumstances in which existing exceptions prevent necessary wildfire mitigation, restoration, or other essential management, those circumstances should be identified and addressed specifically. If the problem is place-specific, the solution should be place-specific. The Forest Service should seriously evaluate retaining the Roadless Rule while modifying or expanding narrowly defined exceptions where a legitimate management need can be demonstrated. It should explain why targeted changes are inadequate before choosing nationwide rescission. The Roadless Rule has protected these lands for 25 years while allowing exceptions for legitimate management needs. The Coronado, Coconino, and White River National Forests are places I return to year after year, but my opposition goes beyond personal attachment. Protecting intact watersheds, directing wildfire resources where they will be most effective, avoiding unnecessary infrastructure costs, and choosing targeted solutions over nationwide rescission are sound principles of public-land management. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule