“Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to…”

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com