Read the comments.

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. I live next to the Chiricahua Mountains and travel within them frequently. There are abundant reasons not to change a status quo that has worked very well, but I wish to underscore that the Forest Service already is trying to add roads within the forest while it is failing to maintain adequately the existing roads, such as FR 42. Removing the protections of the current rule will increase fire danger, damage sensitive habitats, and harm the flora and fauna that the Forest Service is supposed to protect. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. I further endorse the comments of the Chiricahua Regional Council submitted separately by that organization. Sincerely, Richard E Webster Sincerely, Richard Webster PO Box 16412 Portal, AZ 85632-0412 webster.re@gmail.com

I appreciate the many values National Forests bring to my state (including the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in AZ) and the forests I have visited (including the Shasta-Trinity, Deschutes and Mt. Hood National Forests in CA and OR). These values include enhancing my personal wellbeing, providing cleaner drinking water, fueling the local economy through recreation and tourism, supporting habitat for wildlife, and more. As a result, I support keeping the Roadless Rule intact and urge the implementation of Alternative 1: The “No Action Alternative”. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply drinking water for 25 million people in the U.S.; - Support Tribal cultural practices; - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting, all of which fuel the economies of many small towns and rural communities; - Shelter over 200 imperiled species; - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. Additionally, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. Given the rising costs and threat of wildfires, let's not take action that will make the problem worse. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Megan Hooker Flagstaff, AZ 86004

Public Comment Opposing the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66) Dear Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, I am writing to voice my firm opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I advocate for the permanent preservation of all 44.7 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) nationwide. The current federal baseline ensures a unified, robust standard of ecological integrity that localized forest plans simply cannot replicate. While I care about the protection of all national forests across every state, this proposal strikes incredibly close to home. I live in Arizona, where I have hiked and backpacked through the Tonto National Forest and around Mount Lemmon in the Coronado National Forest numerous times. I know firsthand how vital these unroaded spaces are to preserving the delicate desert-to-mountain ecosystems, protecting local municipal watersheds, and offering wild landscapes for quiet recreation. If the Roadless Rule is rescinded, the iconic backdrops of the Arizona National Scenic Trail which winds directly through IRAs in these forests could be forever scarred by industrial road construction and commercial logging. Furthermore, my personal connection to our national forests spans the country. I have had the privilege of creating beautiful memories hiking in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon, the George Washington National Forest in Virginia, and public lands near Ogden, Utah. Most deeply, I proposed to the love of my life in the Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington. These are not merely administrative parcels of land to be exploited; they are the irreplaceable geography of our lives. The impacts of this rescission also extend directly to my loved ones. I have family and friends who rely on the intact backcountries of Washington and Montana for hiking, hunting, and fishing. Millions of outdoor enthusiasts depend on the primitive habitats protected by the 2001 Rule to maintain healthy big game populations and native trout streams. I strongly reject the agency's primary justification that rescission is required for localized forest management, and I urge you to consider the following substantive points regarding wildfire and watershed degradation: - Increased Wildfire Risk and Human-Caused Ignitions: The Forest Service's own DEIS data confirms that repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule actually increases the probability and frequency of wildfire ignitions. Historically, inventoried roadless tracts have up to four times fewer wildfire starts than heavily roaded forest areas. Carving new road networks into remote backcountry provides vehicle access that introduces a primary source of human-caused ignitions. Furthermore, commercial logging operations open up the canopy, altering local microclimates by drying out understory vegetation, creating wind tunnels that accelerate fire spread, and introducing highly combustible fine fuels. - Severe Degradation of Watersheds and Drinking Water Resources: Roadless areas safeguard the headwaters of vital municipal watersheds that provide clean, unfiltered drinking water to over 25 to 60 million Americans. Roads inherently disrupt natural hydrology. Constructing new roads, culverts, and stream crossings triggers severe soil erosion and mass wasting events. The resulting sedimentation and toxic runoff empty directly into pristine headwater streams, choking aquatic habitats, decimating native trout and salmon spawning grounds, and threatening down-river municipal water supplies. This structural damage will force local communities to bear millions of dollars in skyrocketing water treatment and infrastructure costs. The Forest Service already possesses the administrative flexibility under the 2001 Rule to execute targeted hazardous fuel reductions and handle emergencies without stripping protection from 44.7 million acres of pristine public land. Adding more roads when the agency already faces an $8.6 billion deferred road maintenance backlog is environmentally and fiscally irresponsible. Our national forests are an interconnected legacy belonging to all Americans and future generations. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to reject the proposed rescission and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, James Le Gilbert, AZ 85296

Dear Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Alternatives 2 and 3). I urge the agency to adopt Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Rule entirely intact. Unfragmented national forest lands provide irreplaceable value to our environment, wildlife, and local communities. Stripping protections from tens of millions of acres of inventoried roadless areas will open fragile backcountry zones to commercial logging and industrial road construction. This puts critical ecosystem health, native plant and animal habitats, and clean drinking water supplies at severe risk. Creating more roads also further complicates our nation's existing infrastructure needs with wholly unnecessary roads into our pristine backcountries and wilderness. Furthermore, the justification that repealing the rule will mitigate wildfire risks contradicts available science and data showing that most fires originate near human activity and existing infrastructure, rather than remote, non roaded backcountry. Building more industrial roads introduces additional human ignition sources and causes harmful sediment runoff into our watersheds. Because the vast majority of the public strongly supports maintaining these safeguards, I ask the Forest Service to listen to the overwhelming consensus of Americans, respect tribal sovereignty and cultural resources, and preserve the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. Thank you Watson Jones Phoenix, AZ 85016

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. My family lives next to wilderness areas in Tucson, AZ. The integrity of these protected lands provide our clean drinking water in the upper watersheds, protect dark skies at night so we can view stars and the milky way, sustain wildlife that we enjoy viewing, helps our property value, and supports the economy of this area which depends on recreation. Repeal of the roadless rule will negatively impact all of those things that my family cares deeply about. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. If you do not, our children will inherent public lands in significantly worse shape than we did and that could take generations to repair. Sincerely, Emily Hartley 11701 E Saint James Rd Tucson, AZ 85748-7929 em.ferngrotto@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. Undeveloped sections of our U.S. national forests are an asset from which every American can take pride. During my lifetime enjoying public lands across the U.S. West, I have encountered countless individuals in awe of the size, scope and beauty of our U.S. national forests. Some of the most memorable interactions I have had in these settings have been with individuals visiting from other countries, who shared with me that their appreciation for U.S. national forests stems in large part from the fact that in their home countries, there is no such land that has been largely untouched by human development and has been set aside and protected for public benefit. After living and working in the Eastern Sierra of California in the heart of the Inyo National Forest, I came to understand the value that U.S. national forests provide millions of visitors that recreate in them throughout the year. The Roadless Rule has been a critical safeguard for the American asset of undeveloped national forest land, and has provided countless benefits to the people and biodiversity that rely on our public lands for clean air, clean water, and access to America's most pristine natural environments. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will open the door for increased development across our national forests, leading to the degradation of one of America's most valuable treasures: our national forests. Please take the time and proceedings necessary to ensure this change is not adopted without the voice of the American people taken into consideration. Continue to extend the opportunity for public comment, and hold court proceedings across the U.S. so that the public can share how opening up our national forests to development will impact local communities in the present and into the future. This proposal does not have my support, and I urge you to please choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Oliver Fahrner Tucson, AZ 85737 ohf222@gmail.com

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as an avid outdoorsman, hunter, and angler to register my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping protections from tens of millions of acres of wild national forest land directly threatens our nation's finest backcountry habitats and the multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy. Our public lands are the backbone of our country's sporting heritage. My opposition to the rollback is rooted in five critical areas: •Preserving Big Game Habitat: Road construction fragments critical wildlife migration corridors and pushes big game like elk and deer out of their native ranges. Intact, roadless acres keep wildlife populations healthy and preserve the traditional spirit of the fair chase. •Safeguarding Coldwater Fisheries: Dirt roads built for extraction cause heavy soil erosion, washing mud and debris into mountain streams. Leaving these areas roadless protects vital headwaters, keeping trout habitats cold, clean, and productive. •Defending the Backcountry Experience: Millions of hikers, backpackers, and anglers access national forests specifically to seek solitude. Allowing new roads introduces motorized vehicle noise and heavy crowds, permanently ruining the primitive backcountry environment. •Fiscal Responsibility for Taxpayers: The U.S. Forest Service already faces a massive $10.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog on its existing road network. It is fiscally irresponsible to spend taxpayer dollars on new road construction when the agency cannot afford to maintain the roads it already manages. •Mitigating Wildfire Risk: Proponents argue that roads allow better fire management, but forest science shows that the vast majority of human-caused wildfires ignite near roads. Paving new pathways into remote terrain actually increases the risk of accidental ignitions. Decades of public feedback show that the vast majority of Americans want these backcountry spaces left in public hands, undeveloped and unfragmented. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to abandon this rescission and maintain the historic protections of the Roadless Rule for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts. Sincerely, Brad Smith Cave Creek, AZ 85331 brad.smith@my.wheaton.edu

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Margaret Goodbody 14166 N Ageratum Way Oro Valley, AZ 85755-7184 mggoodbody@yahoo.com

To Whom It May Concern, I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am writing to demand that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service maintain the nationwide protections currently shielding our roadless backcountry areas from industrial exploitation. Over my life, I have had the unique privilege to visit, hike, and deeply enjoy these protected wild areas. I want that exact same opportunity to exist for future generations, but the structural damage being pushed by this administration will create irreversible environmental harms that can never be undone. As someone with a personal stake in the future of northern Arizona, I am submitting this comment to protect the fragile ecosystems surrounding Grand Canyon National Park and the adjacent Kaibab National Forest. The recent compounding tragedies on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon are a stark warning of what happens when we fail to prioritize landscape-scale conservation and watershed protection. In July 2025, the catastrophic Dragon Bravo Fire charred nearly 150,000 acres, destroying the historic Grand Canyon Lodge and leaving a massive, highly vulnerable burn scar across our public lands. This environmental trauma directly precipitated the devastating flash floods in Bright Angel Canyon on August 29. The rapid runoff from the burn scar triggered an influx of mud, rockfalls, and debris that destroyed footbridges, ruptured infrastructure, and tragically claimed human lives - and countless creatures who live in these areas. Despite explicit internal warnings from the park's own trail supervisor—who strongly urged that the North Kaibab Trail remain closed for the 2026 season due to elevated hydrologic risks and unstable trail integrity—the National Park Service and Department of the Interior chose to fully reopen the trail in May. Reopening a primary corridor trail beneath a highly volatile burn scar was a severe oversight in risk management. The agencies should have prioritized structural stabilization and climate-resilient engineering over rushing to clear crowds. Allowing industrial road building and logging under the guise of "flexibility" will only amplify these systemic vulnerabilities. The U.S. Forest Service’s own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) reveals that repealing the Roadless Rule actually increases the risk of wildfire starts due to increased human activity and heavy equipment access. Industrial logging roads do not stop modern megafires; they invite more points of failure. Furthermore, building roads and cutting timber strips away the vegetative ground cover that slows down torrential monsoonal rains. As seen in Bright Angel Canyon, denuded landscapes cause immediate, lethal debris flows. Strip-mining the roadless protections from the 1.2 million acres currently protected in Arizona will inevitably lead to severe soil erosion into vital municipal and ecological streams. Stripping protections from the Kaibab National Forest also puts the broader Grand Canyon region at immediate risk for expanded commercial extraction, including uranium mining and commercial timber harvesting. Roadless areas serve as a vital buffer zone for wildlife corridors and hikers alike. The federal government must focus its limited funding and personnel on climate-resilient infrastructure and emergency systems for existing trails, rather than opening untouched backcountry lands to commercial exploitation. The shortsighted policy changes driven by the current administration risk permanently breaking the ecological trust meant for our children. These are public lands that should not be for sale to the highest bidder!!! For these reasons, I urge the agency to select the No Action Alternative and retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, Kimberly Carpenter - Hiker, Nature Lover, Tax Payer! Phoenix, AZ 85044

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Matthew Clark Tucson, AZ 85704 safepassages@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As a frequent visitor to the Coronado National Forest, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. I frequently hike and camp in the various mountain ranges that are part of Forest, enjoying the peace and solitude they offer. The existing roads already provide more than adequate access. For 25 years, the Roadless rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Dirk Van Peenen Tucson, AZ 85716 dvanpeenen@yahoo.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, Today I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at significant risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I strongly urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Karey Haj 6900 E Princess Dr Phoenix, AZ 85054-4101 kareyhaj@hotmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. NO ROADS IN THE WILDERNESS. This is our public land. It's not for sale, not for corporations. Sincerely, Nina Hipps Tucson, AZ 85704 7littlehippies@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choos e no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.I live in SouthEastern Arizona and I want to see our wilderness areas to remain wild Sincerely, Simone Kiere 414 B Mason Hl Bisbee, AZ 85603-1056 oldraghikers@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. I have spent years enjoying the natural beauty of southern Arizona, hiking and birding in the varied sky islands. Recently, I have hiked the Arizona Trail. It is imperative that you uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Amy DeGroff 6258 N Campbell Ave Tucson, AZ 85718-3150 amydegroff3@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. It is more important than ever to preserve the open lands we have, to control flooding and clean out air. Please be wise and keep the Roadless Rule intact! Sincerely, Susan Screven Sincerely, Susan Screven 10484 N Fairway Vista Ln Oro Valley, AZ 85737-9267 sscreven@msn.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. The majority of people do not want this. Only a handful of wealthy people who want to destroy more of our land to put more money in their pockets would support this. Please fight for our wild spaces. It’s one of the few things that is actually good and unique about the US. Don’t let them get destroyed Sincerely, Lauren Ross Tucson, AZ 85718 lrenrss@yahoo.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am tied of this administrations attacks on our national forests! Hands off forever! I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Bruce Moehlman 9225 E Tanque Verde Rd Tucson, AZ 85749-8718 bruce_moehlman@msn.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. I have participated in volunteer programs in over 10 National Forests and have first-hand knowledge of the serenity of these protected areas. Allowing roads into these areas will disrupt the ecosystem, leave scars on those areas that can not be erased for decades!! I have viewed from the air areas in Alaska where roads have permanently changed the ecosystem as compared to roadless areas nearby! Sincerely, Noreen rossa Tucson, AZ 85713 nr7336@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Right now. Thanks. Sincerely, Judy Kennedy Maricopa, AZ 85139 wmtrailsend@gmail.com