Read the comments.

I have worked in and recreated in our national forests most of my life. I spent summers hiking the Blue Ridge Mountains, lived and worked in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest collecting water quality data and the Tahoe National Forest surveying wildlife. Some of that put me in the backcountry for days at a time, hiking into headwater streams and camping miles from any road. I’ve packed in, fished, and photographed wildlife and the night skies. I've talked to other people on the trails that love and treasure these places. That experience is why I’m asking you to oppose any rescission or weakening of the Roadless Rule. The peace and quiet in a roadless area is something you can’t manufacture. Many of us need that at times in our lives. The smell of the trees, the clear, clean air and water and the peace of it all that restores our souls is true recreation. Everybody deserves to experience that. It is our birthright as Americans. Roadless areas are our heritage. Once you road them, you don’t get them back. Now, the cleanest, coldest water I've ever seen came from roadless basins in the Tahoe, California area. But I've also waded streams in the Shasta-Trinity that were so clear I could count the fish at the bottom of plunge pools. I’ve also seen what a road does after a storm, ditches cut, culverts plug, and sediment slugs downstream. That mud smothers spawning gravel and costs downstream communities money to treat. Roadless areas aren’t just scenery. They are the headwaters that fill our rivers and reservoirs. Building roads in these watersheds will impact water quality and fishing which will cost citizens and businesses in treatments and reduced recreation dollars. My survey work showed me, of course, that these areas are source habitat for wildlife. They’re where species that need space and quiet still hold on - native trout, steelhead, salmon, elk, ringtails, mountain lions etc. Roads fragment all that. They bring noise, poaching access, and edge effects that dry out the land, increase temperatures and fire exposure, stress vegetation and animals, fragment habitat and wildlife, and create conditions for invasive species and predators. I’ve seen numerous survey sites where the difference between a roaded and unroaded drainage was like night and day. You can’t replace that with a mitigation plan. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will harm fish and wildlife that need room without roads. And I have lived and worked in fire country. The roadless old growth and unroaded backcountry often burn cooler and patchier. It's pretty obvious that most of the fires, and the worse fires, have been in the roaded areas. More roads don’t suppress fire, they give us more ignition sources and create conditions on the ground ideal for fire via vehicle access and edge effects. If we want to protect communities, we should focus on defensible space and home hardening, not carving new roads into the last quiet places. Finally, I've spent money in nearby communities. The outfitters, guides, fly shops, motels, and cafés in towns drawn and depend on the people who come for the backcountry. Roadless areas are an economic asset. They bring hunters, anglers, hikers, and wildlife watchers. That’s real revenue and real jobs. I've seen what happened in towns like Hayfork, California that depended on logging. The sustainable future for those communities is in continuing to foster recreation opportunities, not more boom-to-bust activity. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is going to harm existing small businesses and leave local populations worse off down the road. So when you consider rescinding the Roadless Rule, please don’t think of it as a map line. Think of the millions of visitors that seek these places out. Think of the clean water they generate for everyone downstream. Think of the fish and wildlife that depend on them. Think of the small towns that rely on people like me. Think of the quiet that took a century to grow. I urge you to oppose any effort to rescind or weaken the Roadless Rule.

I strongly oppose any efforts to rescind or weaken the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a backpacker, trail runner, hiker, and mountain athlete who values public lands and relies on inventoried roadless areas near Tahoe National Forest, Inyo National Forest, Yosemite National Park, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, etc., protecting these landscapes is vital. These places hold a special place in my heart as well as many other US citizen's hearts. Access to untouched public lands is crucial to the wellbeing of the US as a whole. It is so vital to be able to teach ourselves and future generations about these lands and the wildlife, agriculture, and culture they hold. Key reasons to maintain protections include: • Safeguarding critical municipal watersheds and clean drinking water. • Providing essential, unfragmented wildlife and plant habitats. • Acting as natural fire buffers and supporting local recreation economies. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to maintain full, permanent protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Sincerely, Oli Pakes Oakland, California

My name is Brooke Clayton. I live is Stateline, Nevada and frequent many national forests in the area including the Humboldt-Toiyabe, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, El Dorado, and Tahoe National Forest. I am writing this to urge protection for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule to protect our public lands. Rescinding the protections under this rule will threaten forests and natural places that provide innumerable benefits to human’s physical and mental health- let alone all the wildlife and ecosystems that depend on these wild lands. Public lands make America special. They drive a thriving recreation economy. They are a representation of our country’s commitment to wellbeing over profits. Undeveloped forests requester carbon, protect watersheds, and remind us of a world where nature and people thrive together. The arguments laid out in the proposition to rescind this rule are flawed. They are largely made by those with interests in the logging industry who would profit from less protection. Wildfire control is managed well with the current protections, in fact, section 294.13 already permits tree thinning and emergency fire access. I personally know many people who have worked on wildland fire crews and still oppose the proposed changes. They are able to perform their jobs well under the current protections and also love to see intact forests, recognizing the way they also contribute to healthy ecosystems. Please choose the “no action alternative” and vote to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact.

Dear Secretary of Agriculture, I write to strongly express my opposition to the proposal to rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and keep the Roadless Rule entirely intact. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected clean drinking water, vital wildlife habitat, and world-class recreation opportunities across millions of acres of national forests. Opening these pristine landscapes to commercial logging and expensive roadbuilding threatens fragile ecosystems, increases erosion, and fragments critical migration corridors for wildlife. As someone who cares deeply about public lands and local nature areas like [Insert Nearby National Forest, e.g., Tahoe National Forest], I believe rolling back these safeguards is shortsighted and harmful. The Forest Service already manages a massive backlog of unmaintained roads; adding more commercial roads mismanages public resources and does not effectively reduce wildfire risks. I ask you to abandon this proposal and preserve the 2001 Roadless Rule for future generations.

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and Human 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 process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. 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. I would also like to emphasize that I strongly oppose your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and save forests. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless. This rule is vital for protecting our national forests, water supply, and wildlife habitats. Allowing road construction and logging in these areas would have devastating environmental consequences for years to come. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential forests. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. I urge you to uphold the Roadless Rule and protect these irreplaceable landscapes, the wildlife, habitats, recreational spaces and clean water that these beloved intact forests provide, and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come. 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 also want to emphasize that Rolling back the Roadless Rule will not protect communities from wildfire and may in fact lead to more wildfires. Wildfires are four times as likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless forest tracts and 90 percent of all wildfires nationwide started within half a mile of a road. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened 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 have an intimate knowledge of the 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.), Copper Mountain Roadless Area in Elko County roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

Secretary Rollins and Chief Shultz, Your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would undermine tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests, wetlands, and canyons that belong to the American People. It is your role to protect these ecological treasures from the kind of development that would endanger them. Opening up our forests to destructive logging and road building will lead to water pollution of municipal water supplies from Sitka, Alaska to Atlanta, Georgia to Phoenix, Arizona and disrupt recreation areas used by hikers, paddlers, campers, fishermen, and hunters. It will threaten endangered species, disturb wildlife and interrupt vital corridors that allow migration. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule should be STRENGTHENED to protect Alaska’s Tongass National Forest - the largest temperate rainforest in the world, California’s Tahoe National Forest, segments of the Appalachian Trail, the Chattahoochee National Forest. As an avid hiker and camper who grew up in New Mexico, I have witnessed the power and beauty of these pristine environments. My father, who hiked and fished and camped in remote corners of our national forests introduced these special places to me. Because he was a geologist with a deep knowledge of biology, he helped me to understand how connected these natural places are to our well-being. If we destroy them or allow them to be destroyed, it will be at our own peril – and tragically, the peril of our children. The rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule cannot stand. Thank you for your attention to this matter of vital national interest.

Opening 45 million acres of national forests—including iconic destinations like California’s Tahoe National Forest, Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, and the Appalachian Trail—to logging and road construction does not benefit America or it’s citizens. The removal of these longstanding protections for development will increase wildfire risk, threaten wildlife habitats, and degrade watersheds that provide clean drinking water. America’s public lands belong to everyone. Congress should reject this attempt to roll back longstanding protections for our national forests and preserve these lands for future generations.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Four generations of our family have dispersed camped in California's national forests. Teaching our children and grandchildren about the remarkable wildlife found in places like the North Fork Middle Fork American River roadless area in the Tahoe National Forest is not a casual habit for us; it is how we pass on something we care about deeply. When the Forest Service proposes to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, it proposes to change the terms under which we have lived on this land across a span of lifetimes, and I oppose that rescission in the strongest terms I am able to put on paper. The agency's own data on fire risk undermines the case for opening these areas. The DEIS states exactly this: "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." That is not a peripheral finding buried in an appendix; it is the agency's own decade-long record, drawn from the proposal's own supporting document. The North Fork Middle Fork American River, like the rest of California's 4,389,760 acres across 381 inventoried roadless areas, currently benefits from the fire suppression that low road density provides. The effects analysis concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires, yet no projection of that increase is offered. I ask that the agency quantify the expected rise in human-caused ignitions that new road access would produce and weigh it explicitly against whatever claimed reduction in wildfire hazard the proposal asserts. The biodiversity our family values in these places is also placed at risk in a way the agency acknowledges numerically but refuses to apply. "The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent." That range is broad and the lower bound alone is significant; the upper bound is severe. Yet no projection of what that fragmentation would mean across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment appears anywhere in the analysis. Wildlife that our family has spent generations learning to find and understand in California's national forests is represented in the DEIS only as a statistic borrowed from elsewhere and never applied to the landscape at stake. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment and publish that projection as part of its final analysis. The regulatory flexibility analysis that accompanies this proposal cannot survive scrutiny. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." The no-impact conclusion is reached by distributing a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationwide rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas, and the analysis concedes that some firms may lose those receipts entirely. A certification reached by that method does not satisfy the purpose of the regulatory flexibility process. The agency must withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Finally, reliance matters here, and the agency has not attempted to measure it. "The proposal solicits 'any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal' (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none." This comment is one such interest. Our family has structured decades of outdoor life around the understanding that these forests would remain intact. The watershed protections that serve the 1,034 municipal water intakes sitting in watersheds containing affected roadless areas across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, represent a different order of reliance, one measured in drinking water rather than recreation, but both belong in the analysis. The agency invited these statements and owes an accounting: it must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final rule is issued. We want these lands managed responsibly to ensure lasting prosperity. That is not a slogan; it is the standard we have applied across four generations, and it is the standard the agency should apply here. Sincerely, Matthew Keene Somerset, Ca

My family has owned several mining claims in the Tahoe National Forest for more than 40 years. Camping, hiking, swimming and enjoying the beauty of untouched nature has been our passion and an absolute necessity to maintain my sanity in this world. Allowing roads to be built and land to be developed in these areas will devastate the forests and animals that make it their home. We will no longer be able to enjoy the quiet and peaceful environment that now can only be accessed via a hike or bike ride. Vehicle traffic and land development should not be allowed and the roadless rule should absolutely not be pushed forward. These areas need to remain protected at all costs.

Hello, While the benefits I feel are personal as I enjoy being able to visit and hike through California's natural forests and landmarks, I am also opposed to the rescinding of the Roadless Rules/Roadless Areas Conservation for the additional following reasons: While Roadless Areas only comprise 20% of California’s national forests, their benefits are varied and vast, including: Roadless Areas protect drinking water supplies and water sources for agriculture. Roadless areas supply 50% of California’s drinking water. Roadless Areas act as fire buffers for communities and land managers since roadless areas experience far fewer human-caused fire starts than do areas with roads Roadless Areas support the military in many areas of California by helping to maintain large, undeveloped areas of land to conduct training and operations and/or serve as a crucial buffer against urbanization and other forms of outside influences that inhibit capacity for training and testing activities. Contrary to assertions by the USDA, the 2001 Roadless Rule does not do any of the following: The Roadless Rule does not impede national forest planning at the local level. Rather, the Roadless Rule is one of many overarching rules that guide local national forest staff. The Roadless Rule does not harm local economies. In fact, the Roadless Rule keeps drinking water clean for rural and urban communities alike here in California, thereby helping decrease cost on water. Water for agriculture and domestic use and public land related visitation and tourism benefit rural communities thanks in part to the lands covered by the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule does not impede fire suppression. To the contrary, the Forest Service is allowed to use all tools available for firefighting in roadless areas, including bulldozers and aircraft. Fire suppression of active wildfires in roadless areas in California’s national forests is not uncommon. The Roadless Rule does not impede fire risk reduction. Actually, California national forests such as the Los Padres National Forest and Tahoe National Forest conduct fuel management projects in roadless areas while adhering to the Roadless Rule. Existing roads on the boundaries of roadless areas provide adequate access for fire risk reduction. The current proposal would allow new road construction and the logging of our largest trees in roadless areas, despite the increased fire risk and the fact that the U.S. Forest Service cannot currently afford to maintain its existing 47,000 miles of roads in California.

Dear USDA Secretary Rollins, Please accept these 165,473 public comments from members and activists of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in reference to FS-2025-0001. I oppose your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and save forests. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential forests. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come. Thank you. Sincerely, Jenell Walsh-Thomas National Digital Advocacy Campaign Manager, NRDC

I oppose this plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and leave in place the regulations that protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential and irreplaceable forests and natural landscapes. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who love them and for our future generations.

I urge the United States Forest Service to not rescind the 2001 rule to restrict road construction through our nation’s National Forests. I am a professional vegetation ecologist with a doctorate in interactions between native and invasive plant species and years of research experience and publications about damage of invasive plants in fire-prone landscapes. It is well known that roads serve as a primary entry point for invasive plants to colonize, both due to the disturbance associated with their construction and the ongoing use by vehicles that serve as vectors for invasive species spread. These roadside ruderal plant communities are often dominated by invasive annual grasses and forbs which serve as highly volatile fuel sources for wildfires when they senesce. Roads are also primary ignition points. The assertion that roads will improve wildfire fighting capabilities overlooks the fact that they may in fact increase the risk of wildfire in the first place. On a different note, I have another more personal connection to National Forests from my childhood. The largely undeveloped forested slopes of Lake Tahoe are part of what makes the lake such a world famous destination and magical place for children who grow up within a day’s drive. With additional roads in Tahoe National Forest comes an increase in stormwater runoff, leading to erosion and pollution of the lake, damaging its ecological, recreational, aesthetic, and economic value. I am not a behavioral ecologist but I do know that the negative impacts of roads in forests on wildlife behavior and health have been well documented by conservation biologists for decades. Many of our national forests may not be pristine wilderness, but the importance of the fact that they represent large uninterrupted natural areas for people, habitat for endangered plants and wildlife, and provision of vital ecosystem services makes them essential. Please do not rescind the roadless area conservation rule.

I got some of this information from the 5calls app. The Forest Service has now formally advanced Trump's plan to repeal the Roadless Rule, opening 45 million acres of national forests—including iconic destinations like California's Tahoe National Forest, Alaska's Tongass National Forest, and the Appalachian Trail—to logging and road construction.The removal of these longstanding protections for development will increase wildfire risk, threaten wildlife habitats, and degrade watersheds that provide clean drinking water.America's public lands belong to everyone.Congress should reject this attempt to roll back longstanding protections for our national forests and preserve these lands for future generations. I want to be able to enjoy these lands unadulterated from roads and degradation for my entire life. This move will destroy our public lands, harm wildlife, and compromise our safety, air and water quality. I’m pleading with you to protect these lands for enjoyment but also for safety and longevity of the human race. We need to protect our earth because what else will there be when we deplete its resources?

I grew up with access to nature, Point Reyes National Seashore was in my backyard and Tahoe National Forest and Inyo National Forest only a few hours away. Backpacking, hiking, and camping in these public lands grew my admiration for the outdoors. Once you fall in love with nature, it is difficult to not be inspired to protect it. This brought me to career in environmental conservation and education, creating outdoor recreation opportunities for youth and young adults. The peace and quiet you experience while walking through the forest, moss coating the trees and fog rolling through a valley. The ridge lines you work hard to hike to and crest, with an expansive view of forest and ocean on the opposing side. These views and landscapes are at risk with the recision of the Roadless Rule. In 2018, while walking through the streets of San Francisco, a soft ash fell from the sky like snow. Fires converged to cause a darkening of the sky and air quality to plummet. Only a few years later I would awake to a dark red sky, thinking it was the middle of the night, until peering at my clock to see 8:30am lit up on the screen. The robin’s egg morning sky was gone, replaced by the dark swell of blackened clouds, like those circling Mount Doom in Mordor. Air quality was so severe that people were encouraged to stay indoors periodically throughout the summer. However, as a frontline worker working on defensible space to protect homes from fires and maintaining local, state and national parks –that wasn’t an option. My crew and I worked outside throughout these periods of poor air quality, because the nature of our work didn’t allow for indoor alternatives. Fire season has extended later into the year and made me fearful to continue to live in California, so I moved. The intensity and consistency of these fires is exacerbated by human error, such as electric companies neglecting their poles in rural areas. Research shows that wildfire ignition is lowest in designated wilderness areas, including National Forests, away from roads, because the leading cause of fires is human ignition/error (Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026)). Beyond fire safety, there is a magic to the wilderness and public lands that are for the people of this country. These are our backyards, our natural spaces that help people fall in love with nature and recognize the importance of protecting it. Beyond the importance of access, these lands are a refugee for wildlife and maintain clean drinking water for over 124 million people across multiple states in cities and towns alike; that statistic is over 15 years old, so with taking into account population growth, that number has surely increased (DellaSala, D. A. (2011). Roadless areas and clean water. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66(3), 78A–79A). I hope that the representatives that we elected, who stand by the people and wild-lands of this country will stand up for the Roadless Rule and the protection of our forests.

I live in San Antonio, TX and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and working as a wildlife and landscape photographer. Ever-expanding development has and continues to encroach on unprotected lands and the continued protection of the federal government is essential to maintaining the natural beauty of our lands. Duncan Creek is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Duncan Canyon Roadless Area Inventoried Roadless Area in Tahoe National Forest. I have taken two of my grandchildren to this area and we have had priceless memories of being together in this beautiful natural area. I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. These lands should be protected with exceptions when needed, evaluated independently by experts, and without regard to politics. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.

Having lived at Lake Tahoe California my entire life (72 years) it saddens me to imagine losing the roadless protections that have preserved the amazing wild areas that are so important to us all here on the Tahoe National Forest as well as the National forests to both the north and south. From my experience there certainly appears to be ample existing road access for recreation, fire suppression and other needs that might arise. I implore you to leave in place these all important protections. Thank you for your time. Buck Barkley

I favor reduced government regulations with regard to businesses, but I am strongly opposed to this proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I am a resident of Sacramento California, where I retired 5 years ago to enjoy the outdoors including national forest lands. Those National Forest lands are especially important to me because we can take our dog with us when hiking or camping. That's not allowed in the vast majority of National or State Parks. I chose to live near the Sierra Nevada and multiple national forests from El Dorado National Forest in the south through Tahoe NF to Plumas NF north of Lake Tahoe. But I am within fairly easy driving distance of Inyo NF to the southeast, and Klamath, Shasta Trinity and Six Rivers NF's in the northern part of the state. In the former 3 NF's I see this rescission fragmenting beautiful forest lands that will devalue the forests for biking, fishing, hiking and hunting alike. At the same time easier access for people from an expanded road system (not necessarily loggers and others) will increase the likelihood of increased fire danger. But in the latter four forests the even higher percentage of areas being proposed to allow new roads goes beyond devaluing the forest and approaches fragmenting them into a small number of microforests that destroy the existing wilderness. This does not seem well thought out and has no new budget for supporting an even larger road system (neither construction or maintenance). It is also likely to shift current control from a single government unit to conflicting state and local jurisdictions. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.

I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place exactly as it is, and to select Alternative 1, No Action. Like millions of Americans who have spoken out since 2001, I value our public lands and waters, including the 44.7 million acres of undeveloped national forest this rule protects. I am not writing in the abstract. I live in Alpine Meadows, at Lake Tahoe, and I use these forests year-round: backpacking multi-day Sierra routes, running ultra-distance trail events, and backcountry skiing and snowboarding through the winter. My eight-year-old daughter has backpacked with me in Desolation Wilderness, Yosemite, and the eastern Sierra out of Mammoth Lakes. More than 80,000 acres in the Tahoe National Forest and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit are inventoried roadless areas, close to a quarter of Forest Service land in the Basin. The Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of Americans. In the Sierra that means the headwaters of the Truckee, San Joaquin, Kings, and Owens rivers, and it means fine sediment control in the Lake Tahoe Basin, where two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment have gone toward restoring lake clarity. Roads are a principal source of the sediment that investment is fighting. Building more of them in the same watershed works against the public's own money. It provides habitat for threatened and sensitive species, including the Sierra Nevada red fox near Luther Pass, and it sustains old-growth and mature forests that function as carbon sinks. Just as importantly, it keeps these areas connected. The roadless lands between designated wilderness and park units are what allow wide-ranging species to move across the landscape instead of being stranded in islands of protection. It also protects access to climbing, fishing, hiking, backcountry skiing, mountain biking, and paddling, across more than 25,000 miles of trails. The communities around me run on that access. Truckee, Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes, and Bishop have recreation economies, not timber economies. The stated reason for rescission is wildfire risk, and the evidence points the other way. Ignitions are several times denser near roads than in roadless areas, and the Forest Service attributes nine in ten wildfires to human causes. Set against a projected $4.6 to $10.6 million a year in additional timber revenue nationwide, this is not a serious trade. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact and follow Alternative 1, No Action. Thank you, Theresa Smith Olympic Valley, CA

There is an established and growing list of benefits supporting maintaining our remaining intact forests without further road building. From mitigating climate warming, sustaining biodiversity, providing clean water, invasive plants mitigation, mycelial forest support, big game populations, genetic resilience of predators, carbon sequestration, and the list continues to grow as science unveils more. For years in Idaho I was a volunteer, and as now and decades ago I vehemently support, for a plethora of established scientific reasons, the USFS's nationwide "Roadless Rule". It is humans causing 87% of wildfires, and roads are the major culprit of these human agency atrocities of both wildlife, people and property. With every mile of new roads comes people, their fires, ATV's, fireworks, and fire prone noxious invasive plants. Thus I strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agricultures proposal to repeal or weaken the landmark Roadless Area Conservation Rule that has protected wild, un-fragmented forests for more than a quarter-century. The rationale offered for doing so isnt supported by science. This action would harm not help our national forests. I oppose your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and save forests. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaskas Tongass National Forest, the worlds largest intact temperate rainforest and the nations largest old-growth forest. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential forests. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come. I am an avid outdoor recreationist, Roadless Rule advocate and decades long volunteer who regularly visits roadless areas across Idaho and America's national forests, being vehemently supportive of taking the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like Californias Tahoe National Forest, the Boise and Payette NF's, segments of the Appalachian Trail, Montana's Bitterroot, the GYE's Centennial Forest, and more, all to destructive logging and road building is reckless, unscientific, and goes against millions of Americans like myself that loudly voiced support for the RR in the 1990's. I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule as is. Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy, and rescinding the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place exactly as it is. Like millions of Americans who have spoken out since 2001, I support the Roadless Rule and value our country's public lands and waters, including 44.7 million acres of undeveloped forests. I am not sanctioning the piecemeal dismantling of our forests without a concerted fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come. As outlined above, I am deeply concerned with the idea of rescinding the Roadless Rule, which is extremely important to my physical and mental wellness, the outdoor recreation community and the outdoor recreation economy. The rescission would remove important protections for approximately 45 million acres of backcountry national forests, including more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking. The Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of Americans, provides vital habitat for threatened species and sustains old-growth and mature forests that serve as critical carbon sinks. It also protects access to popular climbing, fishing, hiking, backcountry skiing, mountain biking and paddling sites. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact and help protect our legacy of public lands by following Alternative 1 (No Action). Thank you, Mr. Richard A Rusnak Jr