Read the comments.

I am a sentient member of this planet that we call home EARTH. It makes me sick to my core how the natural world and her living creatures are being treated. Sick. I have no great words of persuasion. Listen to Jane Goodall. She was wise beyond her limited time. Listen to the Native Americans. They have ALWAYS known the way. We have got to be better stewards for the next generations. Do not sell out nor lose faith. Do the right thing! PLEASE!

Submit your public comment against repealing the Roadless Rule. You can use this comment: I strongly oppose the USDA's plan to revoke the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless national forests are among the few remaining untouched public forest landscapes. They safeguard clean drinking water, wildlife habitats, salmon streams, old-growth forests, outdoor recreation, and areas vital to communities, Tribal Nations, and future generations. Once these lands are disrupted by roads, logging, and industrial activities, the harm cannot simply be reversed. The USDA should not eliminate a national protection that has guarded roadless forests for over 20 years. The current Roadless Rule already allows for necessary measures to reduce wildfire risk, so repealing it is unnecessary for community safety. More roads could lead to increased human ignition risks, habitat disruption, erosion, and higher management costs in the long term. I'm also worried that rescinding the rule would leave intact forests vulnerable to political pressure and short-term exploitation by shifting protection decisions to local forest planning. Public forests should prioritize clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience, Indigenous stewardship, and public welfare, not increased roadbuilding and logging. Please withdraw the proposed repeal, maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule, and select the strongest option to protect roadless areas throughout the National Forest System. Thank you for considering my comment.

Immediately halt the rulemaking process and keep the existing 2001 Roadless Rule intact; •Consult directly with affected Tribal Historic Preservation Officers before authorizing any action that could alter sacred places, cultural landscapes, historic properties or ancestral remains

Dear Joshua White, Hi my name is Greta Healy and I live in Southeast Alaska. My favorite places in Southeast are the old growth forests. Old, massive trees, mossy forest floors, quiet serene places. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. I live in a town where logging roads have totally changed the forests. The woods that have been logged are dense and the undergrowth is impossible to walk through. Small trees that were undesirable for selling still were cut down but instead of being hauled out they were left in place. Walking through a second growth forest is not conducive to recreating and diminishes habitat for wild animals. I fear more roads and logging will further impact ecosystems that our wildlife depend on. Lets use roads we already have. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. A strong future for Alaska would involve investing in ecotourism. Getting people into these wild places with the goal being to appreciate nature. Not extraction. Extraction is unsustainable and eventually will end. Once the trees are gone the logging *money* will go away- yet the roads and the people who love this wild place will still exist and will once again need to figure out how to survive. Why not figure that out now. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Southeast Alaskans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Greta Healy

Rescinding the roadless area rule would be a great disservice to our country. Our National Parks are some of the most beautiful land in our nations. It contains land that has been minimally disturbed by construction, litter, roadways, etc, which is a rare occurrence in a nation that’s constantly evolving and growing. Our national parks are an attraction for national and global tourism, attracting people from throughout the world to see the beautiful scenery. Adding roadways or other construction would not only destroy this area of tourism and the homes of wildlife, it would disrupt hundreds of years of history preserved in our national parks. The people of the United States do not want roads to be added to our national parks, we want their beauty to be preserved and protected at all costs. It would be devastating to have our parks destroyed and disrupted.

The fact that I even have to comment about protecting our environment and sacred lands is honestly abhorrent. It is our duty to protect the land and nature around us for generations to enjoy. The endless greed needs to stop. I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed recission of the roadless rule. I live in Montana and love the solitude and opportunities for quiet and connection provided by America's roadless lands. I wrote comments on the roadless rule 25 years ago when the question about what the best use of roadless lands was asked and answered by America's public land owners. The answer has not changed, in fact, roadless areas are more important than ever to protect wildlife security, water quality, and hunting opportunities. I ask you to respect the public's overwhelming support for protecting cultural sites, solititude, and wildlife habitat. We have enough roads now and we can't properly maintain them or enforce laws related to wildlife, poaching, fire, and cultural resource protection. Sincerely, Jen Ferenstein

Hello! The purpose of my comment today is to oppose the rescinding of the roadless area conservation rule. I firmly believe that the roadless rule protects crucial wilderness areas, preserves indigenous cultural heritage, and creates a healthier environment for us and our future. As a university student, I am more than excited and motivated to launch into my future. However, I recognize that without a healthy environment, the future I hope for is at risk. I believe the rescinding of this legislation would serve only to harm many ecologically-vital areas, include vital old growth forests which have been untouched by logging for centuries. It would be devastating for so many to see old growth forests, which also serve to protect areas from wildfires in a time when they plague the western United States, disappear. Additionally, many of the lands at risk are historically important lands for indigenous people across the continent. In the modern day, indigenous people still use many of these lands for traditional hunting practices. It would be shameful to see these lands turn into the hands of private owners and deprive indigenous folks from accessing their historical lands. There are many more reasons to protect these lands, whether it’s protecting recreational areas, preventing habitat fragmentation for endangered species, and protecting critical headwaters in the midst of drought. These and the aforementioned reasons are all contributing the fact that the roadless rule must not be repealed.

The following statement was written by Tara Lohan for Magic Canoe (https://magiccanoe.org/the-roadless-rule-is-on-the-chopping-block-thats-horrible-for-wild-salmon/). "More roadbuilding and logging can harm a plethora of forest animals, from songbirds to salamanders to grizzlies. But it also has impacts for aquatic animals, too, including salmon that rely on cool, clean streams. When roads are cut into steep forested hillsides and those trees removed, it can create unstable slopes that increase the risk of landslides, especially in areas with heavy rain, like the Pacific Northwest. “Inventoried roadless areas are often very steep and high elevation. They’re places that are really vulnerable to soil erosion,” says James Fraser, Oregon policy director for Trout Unlimited. ... Subsistence and commercial harvests depend on healthy forests, but rescinding the Roadless Rule puts that at risk. “Under this administration, there would likely be more full-scale logging projects that are targeting old-growth forests,” says Newcomer. The draft environmental impact statement outlines that, with the Roadless Rule removed, about 749,000 acres would be suitable for timber production in the Tongass, including 395,000 acres of old-growth forests. “Salmon are born in headwaters deep in these old-growth forests,” he says. “They go out in the ocean, live their lives, and they come back. They feed the bears, they feed the eagles, they feed the people, and then when they spawn and decompose, they feed the forest again. If you break that cycle anywhere, you’re causing this irreparable harm.” That harm extends from salmon to the people who live in and visit Southeast Alaska. The three biggest industries in the region are recreation, tourism, and fishing—all of which would take a hit if roadless forests are razed. And Haida people, like the Organized Village of Kasaan, are not just salmon people; their culture is intertwined with old-growth trees that are used for totem poles and canoe-making. “It’s a very unique place, and we want to preserve it, not just for tribal reasons, but for global reasons,” says Jones. “It matters to the planet that we have beautiful old-growth forests.” ... The Forest Service is still sitting on billions in backlogged maintenance to its vast road network. The agency needs an estimated $1.6 billion a year to keep them in good working order, but Congress allocates less than 20 percent of that in most years and timber sales don’t make up the difference. But building more roads certainly won’t help fix the problem. The draft environmental impact statement found that revenue generated by timber sales “would be used for some road-related system management but not be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining all new roads related to a project.” Research by Taxpayers for Common Sense also found deeper issues in the Tongass, where timber companies turn a profit even as logging has been a losing deal for taxpayers. Timber sales there since 1980 have cost the Forest Service $1.7 billion, or an average of about $44 million per year. The agency spends vastly more administering its timber sales—which includes selecting timber stands, doing thinning work when needed, advertising the sale and selected bids, and sometimes constructing or reconstructing roads—than the profits it recoups from the sales. “The U.S. Forest Service could end up losing nearly $190 million in the Tongass over the next five years from planned sales, and more if currently roadless areas are opened to logging,” the nonpartisan group found." Hi, my name is Kara Newman, and I was born and raised in Petersburg, Alaska. I am begging you to not only hail these words, but also my own: do NOT rescind the Roadless Rule. I do not support that. My heart, home, and livelihood depends on the continued existence of this special conservation area. I implore you to do the right thing and work towards conservation rather than irresponsible development that is profit-driven at the expense of the natural balance that we all depend on. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Kara Emiko Newman

Please protect our water, forests, and wildlife: Do not repeal the Roadless Rule! There are already plenty of roads for the USFS to effectively manage the forests. The Rule already allows for thinning and other management to reduce wildfire risk and follow USFS best practices. Studies actually demonstrate that more roads lead to more fires, despite the incorrect claim that more roads would help fight fires. As an avid outdoorsperson, I highly value pristine forests far from road noise. These places are special and so different from areas closer to roads. As a former bird biologist, I know that habitat fragmentation and loss is driving the decline of many species of birds and wildlife. Once the habitat is altered, it is impossible to fully restore it to its pristine condition. Smaller patches of pristine forest support fewer resources, lowering the carrying capacity for populations and increasing competition. Roads and related human impacts impede wildlife migration which leads to a loss of genetic diversity and puts strain on wildlife that are already struggling to survive. Roads also change patterns of temperature, wind, and sunlight which impacts all nearby species of plants and wildlife. In addition, human presence introduces a host of other problems such as increased fire risk, water and soil contamination, noise pollution, etc. There are already so few places where there are no roads. Protected roadless forests are among the nation's most important and most visited public lands. They safeguard river headwaters that provide drinking water for millions, preserve wildlife habitat for hundreds of species and provide popular recreation areas. Many roadless forests are also critical to the livelihood and culture of Indigenous communities. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been in place with bipartisan support for 25 years. Repealing it will only allow logging and development to irreversibly damage these special places. Please ensure these forests remain protected to preserve the healthy ecosystems and outdoor traditions we have today. There is no need to repeal the Roadless Rule. Thank you for reading and considering my comment.

I am writing to oppose adding roads into areas of conservation. We need to protect our wild areas with indigenous science. Keep paved roads and recklessness out of our protected natural environment. These spaces are needed for human longevity, sanity and for wildlife, including plants, animals, birds, microcosms and microbiomes. This all supports humanity.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool. This land is not a resource to exploit, it is our home and home to all animals we share it with. If you think there is anything to accomplish in clear cutting sacred land you are sorely mistaken. How far off from reality do we need to be to destroy and murder the regenerative life of nature, purely for our personal gain. How are you not empathetic enough to see that we are not the only living things on this earth and we all need each other to thrive. I am a teenager, I dont wish to spend my free time in tears writing the government, begging the government to not destroy the world I am being brought into. Im scared and I am tired, and I dont remember a time when I wasnt. Rescinding the roadless rule is not a solution. Have empathy, and take action on a living future. Thank you. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, Phoebe Clarkson Massachusetts

Please do not repeal the roadless rule! We need these untouched spaces to last forever for the wildlife, plants, and indigenous people that use them! We have enough roads in America, there is no need to take the last untouched places we have and create more. Studies show that the existence of roads actually lead to more forest fires, and the road construction will leech chemicals into the soil. Please do not get rid of the roadless rule!

Hello, My name is Levi Showalter and I am writing to express my strong opposition to the repeal of the Roadless Rule. I spent several years as an employee of the Forest Service in Idaho and Alaska, doing hands-on forest management in several of the areas this rule protects. America's roadless areas protect many of our most valuable, long-term public resources: clean water, fish and game, sensitive plant species, and many others. Specifically, I worked on a botany crew; roadless areas are the only suitable habitat for several species of rare plants we surveyed for. The activities currently prohibited by the Roadless Rule are those which would severely degrade the suitability of these habitats for sensitive species. Once these areas are developed for road construction, mining, or logging, their resources are not replaceable, and neither are their intangible cultural value. As an employee of the Tongass National Forest, I had the opportunity to live in the remote Alaskan community of Thorne Bay, on Prince of Wales Island. There, I experienced firsthand how proper forest management affects people’s lives. The locals depend heavily on wild game, fish, and plants as major parts of their diet, as imported groceries were extremely costly. Our work at the Forest Service to properly steward forest resources helped support not only an ecosystem that would be sustainable long-term in and of itself, but also support a human community that could trust the resources it provided. The Roadless Rule, which governs large areas of the Tongass near Thorne Bay, is critical for preserving the habitats that can support these natural resources and the people who depend on them. We saw this contrasted with other parts of the island that had been mismanaged by clearcutting, poorly managed uranium mining by foreign companies, and haphazard road construction. The former areas were able to support communities where people were proud of their way of life. The latter were expensive remediation sites, and served little useful purpose to either nature or society, in contrast to the USFS mission of “Caring for the land and serving people”. These areas greatly impact offsite resources as well; they protect stream headwaters and clean air that find their way into populated places. The Roadless Rule exists not to cordon off these resources and make them “unusable”; it exists because they are performing essential ecosystem functions that will keep the land productive for many generations to come. As such, I strongly urge the Forest Service to retain this rule. I hope my children and grandchildren will one day be able to enjoy the same great American outdoors that I do, and that they may be able to take an active role in properly stewarding its natural resources. I have contacted my congressmen already to express my sentiment, and I earnestly hope that Secretary Rollins will trust the experience of her agency’s employees such as myself, along with the many other concerned citizens who recognize the irreplaceable value of the lands protected by the Roadless Rule. Thank you, Levi Showalter

My name is Abbie, I grew up in rural arizona and It is very important to me that we preserve the roadless rule. By keeping our wilderness areas wild, we keep recreation areas that I have loved all my life accessible to the public, of which there are too many to name. I want to be able to share the beauty of our country with those that come after me, and the ability will be secretly weakened if we do not protect our nations wild areas. I am enriched by protecting the biodiversity around the entire country, and everyone who shares in our public lands will be able to feel this enrichment for much longer than any extractive materials will last. Our roadless rules also help protect our country from fire and the devastating effects of continuing global warming. Roadless areas are proven to be more fire resistant, and less likely to start fires than anywhere within a mile of a road. I have seen too many fires in my lifetime, and friends and family have lost their homes to fire. One of the few things left that truly makes America the place it is is our public lands, and we have a duty to protect them. You as our government have a duty to us as people to protect us, and the lands we share. Do not touch the roadless rule, and do not touch our national forests, BLM land, and our shared public recreation areas. Shame on those who want to deface our public sacred and cultural spaces.

To Whom it concerns at the Fed Ag dept., It is imperative that the federal government continue to preserve wilderness and National forested areas with the Roadless Area Conservation Act. There is immense value in keeping these ecosystems intact and allowing wildlife and forests to remain road free. We have enough roads already and are losing the ecosystems that we depend upon for clean air and water at an alarming rate. 7 out of 9 planetary boundaries for safely inhabiting the planet have been crossed. We need to recognize the importance of acting in ways that protect the wellbeing for all life - including but not limited to humans. The Roadless Areas are home to Wild Salmon, Bears, Eagles, Owls and Indigenous communities that don’t have a voice in the matter. Please continue to keep the protections in place. Sincerely, Steven Thompson

Hello, My name is Levi Showalter and I am writing to express my strong opposition to the repeal of the Roadless Rule. I spent several years as an employee of the Forest Service in Idaho and Alaska, doing hands-on forest management in several of the areas this rule protects. America's roadless areas protect many of our most valuable, long-term public resources: clean water, fish and game, sensitive plant species, and many others. Specifically, I worked on a botany crew; roadless areas are the only suitable habitat for several species of rare plants we surveyed for. The activities currently prohibited by the Roadless Rule are those which would severely degrade the suitability of these habitats for sensitive species. Once these areas are developed for road construction, mining, or logging, their resources are not replaceable, and neither are their intangible cultural value. As an employee of the Tongass National Forest, I had the opportunity to live in the remote Alaskan community of Thorne Bay, on Prince of Wales Island. There, I experienced firsthand how proper forest management affects people’s lives. The locals depend heavily on wild game, fish, and plants as major parts of their diet, as imported groceries were extremely costly. Our work at the Forest Service to properly steward forest resources helped support not only an ecosystem that would be sustainable long-term in and of itself, but also support a human community that could trust the resources it provided. The Roadless Rule, which governs large areas of the Tongass near Thorne Bay, is critical for preserving the habitats that can support these natural resources and the people who depend on them. We saw this contrasted with other parts of the island that had been mismanaged by clearcutting, poorly managed uranium mining by foreign companies, and haphazard road construction. The former areas were able to support communities where people were proud of their way of life. The latter were expensive remediation sites, and served little useful purpose to either nature or society, in contrast to the USFS mission of “Caring for the land and serving people”. These areas greatly impact offsite resources as well; they protect stream headwaters and clean air that find their way into populated places. The Roadless Rule exists not to cordon off these resources and make them “unusable”; it exists because they are performing essential ecosystem functions that will keep the land productive for many generations to come. As such, I strongly urge the Forest Service to retain this rule. I hope my children and grandchildren will one day be able to enjoy the same great American outdoors that I do, and that they may be able to take an active role in properly stewarding its natural resources. I have contacted my congressmen already to express my sentiment, and I earnestly hope that Secretary Rollins will trust the experience of her agency’s employees such as myself, along with the many other concerned citizens who recognize the irreplaceable value of the lands protected by the Roadless Rule. Thank you, Levi Showalter

I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (henceforth “Roadless Rule”), and I urge the Forest Service to select the 'No Action' alternative. Please see my detailed comments in my attached file. A summary of my arguments in the detailed comments is below. My comments and concerns about the Proposed Alternative primarily fall under the following categories: -Personal and Professional Experiences -Existing Exemptions, under No Action -Financial Costs of Proposed Action -Executive Orders, and relation to Proposed Action. For the Final EIS, the Forest Service should evaluate potential ecological impacts of the Proposed Action before finalizing any decisions. These impacts should include effects on hydrology, water quality, and sediment transport in mountain watersheds; effects on aquatic ecosystem habitats, not just for threatened or endangered species but also for other sensitive native species such as aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, fish, birds, and other mammals; biodiversity of forest plants, trees, and subsurface species; and impacts to non-motorized human recreation in the affected areas. The potential for road access to actually increase the frequency of wildfires should also be assessed. Impacts to tribal and other indigenous artifacts, sacred and cultural sites, and tribal treaty rights also must be considered. The FEIS should also explain why the option of Exceptions under the existing 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule are inadequate for the needs expressed in the Proposed Action, such that the No Action Alternative doesn't adequately meet those needs. Roadless areas in National Forests are public lands that belong to all Americans and are not just for private industry and resource extraction. The EIS must demonstrate that the Proposed Action provides benefits to all Americans above and beyond the values that Roadless Areas provide under the No Action Alternative, and not just to the timber or mining industry. It needs to show that the value, both in financial and ecological terms, of timber industry and mining under Proposed Action will offset the value of intact streams and water treatment, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and reduced wildfire and management costs under No Action. This is a very tall order.

Roadless Rule Comment — Working Draft I live in the Sierra Nevada foothills of California. Here, wildfire is not an abstract idea. We watch the weather, and our hearts drop when we see smoke. We clear our land, check Watch Duty, and know what evacuation warnings mean. Our forests must be actively and intelligently managed, and we need the Forest Service and firefighters to have the tools they need to keep communities safe. I also oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule. I understand the problem the Forest Service is trying to solve. Forests and wildfire have changed, and a twenty-five-year-old rule cannot anticipate every management need, but 44.7 million acres is an extraordinary amount of land to remove protection from in order to gain flexibility where it may sometimes be needed. “Roadless” does not need to mean “unmanaged.” These are living places, containing headwaters, wildlife habitat, migration corridors, threatened species, soils, carbon stores, and places people hunt, fish, hike, and play. Many are also ancestral homelands Indigenous peoples knew, tended, burned, harvested, and cared for long before there was a Forest Service. Some western forests desperately need active management, but that can mean prescribed and cultural fire, targeted thinning, selective harvest, habitat restoration, and temporary access where genuinely necessary. The Forest Service’s own research has found that lack of roads has not prevented fuel-management work in inventoried roadless areas. A forest can be both protected and actively stewarded. The Forest Service's consultation found that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission,” citing concerns including sovereignty, cultural survival, ancestral homelands, sacred places, water, subsistence resources, and repeated project-level review. I am not asking the Forest Service to listen to Tribal Nations because I assume they will agree with me. They may not. A Nation may support burning, harvesting, thinning, or access I wouldn’t personally choose. Sovereignty means very little if we respect it only when we get the answer we want- that being said, I believe they deserve the respect and trust to make decisions about the land they know best. Please keep national protection while allowing Tribal Nations a stronger role in deciding how these areas are stewarded. Expand co-stewardship and cultural fire programs, provide resources for meaningful participation, and recognize Indigenous knowledge as expertise where Nations choose to share it. We do not need one answer for every acre. If an important fuel treatment genuinely requires temporary road access, build the temporary road, do the work, and then restore it. Burn where fire is needed. Thin where thinning is needed. And if a roadless watershed or habitat is healthy and there is no compelling reason to disturb it, leave it roadless. Roads are useful tools, but Forest Service research also recognizes their potential costs to wildlife habitat, water, aquatic ecosystems, and the spread of invasive species. That doesn't mean “never build a road;” it means a road should solve a problem worth the cost of the road. Timber, minerals, jobs, and economic development have real value. So do intact watersheds, wildlife habitat, cultural landscapes, and forests that have remained largely undeveloped. Some of these can be replaced. Others, once lost, may not be recoverable at all. Please, choose the more careful path. Change the parts of the Rule that genuinely prevent necessary work. Create carefully limited exceptions. Allow temporary access where evidence shows it is needed. Expand prescribed and cultural fire. Work with Tribal governments as partners. Target resources where wildfire risk is greatest. But keep protection as the starting point! A regulation can be amended again. A forest treatment can be repeated. A temporary road can be restored. An intact watershed, an old habitat corridor, a cultural landscape, or a species population cannot always be reconstructed after we find out we made the wrong decision. That is what I believe is at stake here: not whether we manage our forests, but how we manage them. Not whether a twenty-five-year-old rule can change, but whether the problems we’ve identified require us to discard the protection itself. Please retain the Roadless Rule, improve it where experience shows improvement is necessary, and build the next generation of forest management around careful intervention, good science, Tribal sovereignty and stewardship, and the humility to recognize that sometimes the wisest management decision is to act- and sometimes it’s leaving a living landscape whole.

Protect the roadless rule, for us, for the future of our grandchildren, the flora and fauna who have no voice other than ours. Once lost these pristine and precious areas are gone forever. The lands are not empty but have a timeless value of their own, home to plant and animal beings, sacred to millennia of humans