Read the comments.

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). I live in Wisconsin. While this does not directly affect my home, it would affect me. I often travel and always look forward to the time I get to spend in national forests throughout the US. If the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is approved, the area will not only be harmful to the flora and fauna who call it home, but the areas will be more dangerous due to increased wildfire risks. I am submitting this comment because the stated justification for this rule, reducing wildfire risk, is contradicted by the Forest Service's own research, and I want that contradiction on the record. A peer reviewed study covering three decades of wildfire data across all eight contiguous U.S. Forest Service regions found that wildfire ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness and inventoried roadless areas, and highest within 50 meters of roads, roughly four times higher than in roadless areas. Nationally, close to 89 percent of wildfires are human caused, and ignitions cluster overwhelmingly near roads, since roads are what bring people, vehicles, and ignition sources into the forest in the first place. This is not a matter of interpretation. Roadless areas do not drive the wildfire crisis. Roads do. The proposed rule claims that rescinding roadless protections will give forest managers more flexibility to address wildfire risk. But California's own Natural Resources Agency has stated that the roadless rule has not hindered active forest management, pointing to more than 240,000 acres of roadless land in California that have already undergone vegetation treatment under the existing rule, including work in the Caples Creek roadless area that helped protect communities during the 2021 Caldor Fire. The tools to manage fire risk within roadless areas already exist and are already being used. This rule does not add wildfire protection. It adds roads, and roads are what the data shows increases ignition risk. Beyond fire, opening these areas to road construction and logging fragments wildlife habitat and migration corridors, increases sediment and erosion into the watersheds that supply drinking water to millions of Californians, and permanently alters some of the last intact, unroaded forest land left in this state. Forests including the San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, and Los Padres are not abstract acreage. They are the source of the water people drink. The nature I want to visit will be no more; once they are roaded and developed, that character does not come back. I also have not seen a cost benefit analysis in this proposal that accounts for the increased wildfire suppression costs, watershed and water treatment costs, and lost recreation and tourism value that come with rescinding this protection. Who will pay to keep the roads in pristine condition? Without that, these roads can be dangerous. Already, road upkeep is a challenge for existing roads; adding more does not help anyone. An analysis that omits those costs is incomplete and does not support the conclusion that this rule is a net benefit. Researcher and independent journalist Aidin Robbins made an insightful video about why we need the roadless rule titled “Why We Need the Roadless Rule” which can be found at this link: https://youtu.be/YAH3l0Uzl7k?si=n6foaQhzM4g42YI4. It is credible, with many sources cited. Beyond the points already shared, he showcases different species of creatures, including animals, plants, and moss will likely go extinct if the 2001 Roadless Rule is thoughtlessly removed. Losing species of creatures can impact whole ecosystems beyond repair. Finally, once we start pretending that rules and protections for the dwindling natural resources don’t matter, everyone is in danger. Trees give us oxygen that we need to breathe. Every single person depends on water. Wildfires can destroy homes, health, and large areas of once usable, thriving lands. If this is allowed now, what’s to stop this from happening everywhere? Where does it end? I stand both with the majority of Tribal governments opposed to rescinding the rule and the more than a million supporters of the original adopted rule. I urge the Department to withdraw this proposed rule and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully in place. Please enter my opposition into the official record.

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). I live in Wisconsin. While this does not directly affect my home, it would affect me. I often travel and always look forward to the time I get to spend in national forests throughout the US. If the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is approved, the area will not only be harmful to the flora and fauna who call it home, but the areas will be more dangerous due to increased wildfire risks. I am submitting this comment because the stated justification for this rule, reducing wildfire risk, is contradicted by the Forest Service's own research, and I want that contradiction on the record. A peer reviewed study covering three decades of wildfire data across all eight contiguous U.S. Forest Service regions found that wildfire ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness and inventoried roadless areas, and highest within 50 meters of roads, roughly four times higher than in roadless areas. Nationally, close to 89 percent of wildfires are human caused, and ignitions cluster overwhelmingly near roads, since roads are what bring people, vehicles, and ignition sources into the forest in the first place. This is not a matter of interpretation. Roadless areas do not drive the wildfire crisis. Roads do. The proposed rule claims that rescinding roadless protections will give forest managers more flexibility to address wildfire risk. But California's own Natural Resources Agency has stated that the roadless rule has not hindered active forest management, pointing to more than 240,000 acres of roadless land in California that have already undergone vegetation treatment under the existing rule, including work in the Caples Creek roadless area that helped protect communities during the 2021 Caldor Fire. The tools to manage fire risk within roadless areas already exist and are already being used. This rule does not add wildfire protection. It adds roads, and roads are what the data shows increases ignition risk. Beyond fire, opening these areas to road construction and logging fragments wildlife habitat and migration corridors, increases sediment and erosion into the watersheds that supply drinking water to millions of Californians, and permanently alters some of the last intact, unroaded forest land left in this state. Forests including the San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, and Los Padres are not abstract acreage. They are the source of the water people drink. The nature I want to visit will be no more; once they are roaded and developed, that character does not come back. I also have not seen a cost benefit analysis in this proposal that accounts for the increased wildfire suppression costs, watershed and water treatment costs, and lost recreation and tourism value that come with rescinding this protection. Who will pay to keep the roads in pristine condition? Without that, these roads can be dangerous. Already, road upkeep is a challenge for existing roads; adding more does not help anyone. An analysis that omits those costs is incomplete and does not support the conclusion that this rule is a net benefit. Researcher and independent journalist Aidin Robbins made an insightful video about why we need the roadless rule titled “Why We Need the Roadless Rule” which can be found at this link: https://youtu.be/YAH3l0Uzl7k?si=n6foaQhzM4g42YI4. It is credible, with many sources cited. Beyond the points already shared, he showcases different species of creatures, including animals, plants, and moss will likely go extinct if the 2001 Roadless Rule is thoughtlessly removed. Losing species of creatures can impact whole ecosystems beyond repair. Finally, once we start pretending that rules and protections for the dwindling natural resources don’t matter, everyone is in danger. Trees give us oxygen that we need to breathe. Every single person depends on water. Wildfires can destroy homes, health, and large areas of once usable, thriving lands. If this is allowed now, what’s to stop this from happening everywhere? Where does it end? I stand both with the majority of Tribal governments opposed to rescinding the rule and the more than a million supporters of the original adopted rule. I urge the Department to withdraw this proposed rule and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully in place. Please enter my opposition into the official record.

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). I live at high elevation in California and spend most of my time in our national forests, hiking, backpacking, and climbing. I am submitting this comment because the stated justification for this rule, reducing wildfire risk, is contradicted by the Forest Service's own research, and I want that contradiction on the record. A peer reviewed study covering three decades of wildfire data across all eight contiguous U.S. Forest Service regions found that wildfire ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness and inventoried roadless areas, and highest within 50 meters of roads, roughly four times higher than in roadless areas. Nationally, close to 89 percent of wildfires are human caused, and ignitions cluster overwhelmingly near roads, since roads are what bring people, vehicles, and ignition sources into the forest in the first place. In California specifically, mapping of human caused fires on national forest land found that nearly two thirds sparked along roadsides. This is not a matter of interpretation. Roadless areas do not drive the wildfire crisis. Roads do. The proposed rule claims that rescinding roadless protections will give forest managers more flexibility to address wildfire risk. But California's own Natural Resources Agency has stated that the roadless rule has not hindered active forest management, pointing to more than 240,000 acres of roadless land in California that have already undergone vegetation treatment under the existing rule, including work in the Caples Creek roadless area that helped protect communities during the 2021 Caldor Fire. The tools to manage fire risk within roadless areas already exist and are already being used. This rule does not add wildfire protection. It adds roads, and roads are what the data shows increases ignition risk. Beyond fire, opening these areas to road construction and logging fragments wildlife habitat and migration corridors, increases sediment and erosion into the watersheds that supply drinking water to millions of Californians, and permanently alters some of the last intact, unroaded forest land left in this state. Forests including the San Bernardino, Angeles, Cleveland, and Los Padres are not abstract acreage. They are the source of the water I drink and the places I go to be outside, and once they are roaded and developed, that character does not come back. I also have not seen a cost benefit analysis in this proposal that accounts for the increased wildfire suppression costs, watershed and water treatment costs, and lost recreation and tourism value that come with rescinding this protection. An analysis that omits those costs is incomplete and does not support the conclusion that this rule is a net benefit. I urge the Department to withdraw this proposed rule and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully in place. Please enter my opposition into the official record.