Read the comments.

Opposition Toward Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule As a consulting forester with a bachelors in environmental science, I strongly oppose the USFS decision the rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. While roads are essential for basic forestry practices; Forestry, let alone bulldozers do not belong in wilderness areas. The value of wilderness areas lies within their resilience. With the 2001 roadless rule in tact, these wilderness areas remain as ecosystem and public servants to current as well as future generations. As climate change continues to push us further into the unknown, these roadless wilderness areas provide essential buffers for water availability, wildlife populations, insects, reduced wildfire risk, and native plant dominance. (Miller Kenton, 1999). As I have seen first hand in my line of work, allowing the construction of roads in these areas will permanently dismantle the economical and ecological benefits associate with roadless areas. The environmental impacts associated with forest road construction are severe and expensive, especially in steep terrain (Caliskan, 2013). I would understand if the USFS decided to allow exceptions to this rule for the purpose of wildfire mitigation and public recreation in urban-wild land interfaces. However, to completely rescind the Roadless Rule is far too broad of a change. It is obvious that this decision is not in favor of the public interest, forest health, natural resource equity, or local economies. With several roadless areas right here in the San Juans, I can confidently say running a bulldozer uphill will have negative impacts to our local economies and environment (Holmes et-al. 2016). Traveling to a wilderness area is a spiritual experience that feels like traveling back in time. The 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the best decisions this country has ever made. To conclude, removing it would be one of this country’s biggest mistakes. Caliskan, E. Environmental impacts of forest road construction on mountainous terrain. J Environ Health Sci Engineer 10, 23 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-10-23 International Journal of Wilderness. Miller Kenton, 35-39, 1999). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=ecological+benefits+of+wilderness+areas&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1791332940345&u=%23p%3DR7-IhIl3-IoJ A synthesis of the economic values of wilderness TP Holmes, …, JM Bowker, …, J Englin, …, E Hjerpe, …, JB Loomis, …, S Phillips, …, R Richardson Journal of Forestry , 2016 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=benifits+of+wilderness+areas&btnG=#d=gs_md_aa-d&t=1791332621420&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AKzYOlII3gk0J%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26scioq%3Dbenefits%2Bof%2Bwilderness%2Bareas%26dv%3D0%26output%3Daa%26ei%3DepDFatK1Ite46rQPmoOZiAE%26scirp%3D2%26hl%3Den

Opposition Toward Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule As a consulting forester with a bachelors in environmental science, I strongly oppose the USFS decision the rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. While roads are essential for basic forestry practices; Forestry, let alone bulldozers do not belong in wilderness areas. The value of wilderness areas lies within their resilience. With the 2001 roadless rule in tact, these wilderness areas remain as ecosystem and public servants to current as well as future generations. As climate change continues to push us further into the unknown, these roadless wilderness areas provide essential buffers for water availability, wildlife populations, insects, reduced wildfire risk, and native plant dominance. (Miller Kenton, 1999). As I have seen first hand in my line of work, allowing the construction of roads in these areas will permanently dismantle the economical and ecological benefits associate with roadless areas. The environmental impacts associated with forest road construction are severe and expensive, especially in steep terrain (Caliskan, 2013). I would understand if the USFS decided to allow exceptions to this rule for the purpose of wildfire mitigation and public recreation in urban-wild land interfaces. However, to completely rescind the Roadless Rule is far too broad of a change. It is obvious that this decision is not in favor of the public interest, forest health, natural resource equity, or local economies. With several roadless areas right here in the San Juans, I can confidently say running a bulldozer uphill will have negative impacts to our local economies and environment (Holmes et-al. 2016). Traveling to a wilderness area is a spiritual experience that feels like traveling back in time. The 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the best decisions this country has ever made. To conclude, removing it would be one of this country’s biggest mistakes. Caliskan, E. Environmental impacts of forest road construction on mountainous terrain. J Environ Health Sci Engineer 10, 23 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-10-23 International Journal of Wilderness. Miller Kenton, 35-39, 1999). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=ecological+benefits+of+wilderness+areas&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1791332940345&u=%23p%3DR7-IhIl3-IoJ A synthesis of the economic values of wilderness TP Holmes, …, JM Bowker, …, J Englin, …, E Hjerpe, …, JB Loomis, …, S Phillips, …, R Richardson Journal of Forestry , 2016 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=benifits+of+wilderness+areas&btnG=#d=gs_md_aa-d&t=1791332621420&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AKzYOlII3gk0J%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26scioq%3Dbenefits%2Bof%2Bwilderness%2Bareas%26dv%3D0%26output%3Daa%26ei%3DepDFatK1Ite46rQPmoOZiAE%26scirp%3D2%26hl%3Den

Opposition Toward Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule As a consulting forester with a bachelors in environmental science, I strongly oppose the USFS decision the rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. While roads are essential for basic forestry practices; Forestry, let alone bulldozers do not belong in wilderness areas. The value of wilderness areas lies within their resilience. With the 2001 roadless rule in tact, these wilderness areas remain as ecosystem and public servants to current as well as future generations. As climate change continues to push us further into the unknown, these roadless wilderness areas provide essential buffers for water availability, wildlife populations, insects, reduced wildfire risk, and native plant dominance. (Miller Kenton, 1999). As I have seen first hand in my line of work, allowing the construction of roads in these areas will permanently dismantle the economical and ecological benefits associate with roadless areas. The environmental impacts associated with forest road construction are severe and expensive, especially in steep terrain (Caliskan, 2013). I would understand if the USFS decided to allow exceptions to this rule for the purpose of wildfire mitigation and public recreation in urban-wild land interfaces. However, to completely rescind the Roadless Rule is far too broad of a change. It is obvious that this decision is not in favor of the public interest, forest health, natural resource equity, or local economies. With several roadless areas right here in the San Juans, I can confidently say running a bulldozer uphill will have negative impacts to our local economies and environment (Holmes et-al. 2016). Traveling to a wilderness area is a spiritual experience that feels like traveling back in time. The 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the best decisions this country has ever made. To conclude, removing it would be one of this countrys biggest mistakes. Caliskan, E. Environmental impacts of forest road construction on mountainous terrain. J Environ Health Sci Engineer 10, 23 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-10-23 International Journal of Wilderness. Miller Kenton, 35-39, 1999). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enandas_sdt=0%2C6andq=ecological+benefits+of+wilderness+areasandbtnG=#d=gs_qabsandt=1791332940345andu=%23p%3DR7-IhIl3-IoJ A synthesis of the economic values of wilderness TP Holmes, , JM Bowker, , J Englin, , E Hjerpe, , JB Loomis, , S Phillips, , R Richardson Journal of Forestry , 2016 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enandas_sdt=0%2C6andq=benifits+of+wilderness+areasandbtnG=#d=gs_md_aa-dandt=1791332621420andu=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AKzYOlII3gk0J%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26scioq%3Dbenefits%2Bof%2Bwilderness%2Bareas%26dv%3D0%26output%3Daa%26ei%3DepDFatK1Ite46rQPmoOZiAE%26scirp%3D2%26hl%3Den The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.