FS-2025-0001-562319

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative and retain full Roadless Rule protections. I live in Belmont, California and spend time hiking and camping in nearby Roadless Areas like the Freel IRA in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and the Bear Canyon IRA in the Los Padres National Forest. This year, I had the privilege of hiking through 231 miles of Roadless Areas while “thru-hiking” the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT). I have fond memories of many of these Roadless Areas, and met many other American thru-hikers, locals, and international tourists out enjoying them with me. On the ridgelines north of Rainy Pass in Washington’s Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, I was blown away by views of the rugged North Cascade mountains. Above the Rosary Lakes in Oregon’s Deschutes National Forest, I enjoyed a beautiful sunset. In the meadows north of Carson Pass in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, I saw some of the most incredible wildflower displays I have ever seen. And on a sunny Saturday in Southern California’s San Bernardino National Forest, I shared the trail with many local families out swimming and fishing in Deep Creek. Under the agency’s proposed Alternative 2, all of these areas would lose protections. By opening Roadless Areas up to commercial development, we would fundamentally degrade their wild character, threaten water quality and wildlife, and diminish the recreational experience for locals and tourists alike. I hear the argument that roads allow access to help fight fires, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I am concerned that removing Roadless Rule protections would increase fire risk in our nation’s backcountry forests. In the DEIS, the agency admits that “Road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions.” But recent research from The Wilderness Society shows that from 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in areas with roads as in roadless forest tracts. A 2007 study from the Pacific Biodiversity Institute showed that more than 90 percent of wildfires occurred within half a mile of a road. These studies are attached. If a fire starts of natural causes in a remote, roadless forest far from civilization, that is a natural ecological process, not a problem that needs to be fought. It is well-known that excessive fire suppression leads to more severe fires in the long-run. What we must limit is the number of human-caused fires in our national forests, and building more roads and human infrastructure will only increase that risk. While on the PCT, I met many hikers from other countries. One thing they often said was that their countries don’t have wild land like we have in America. Our beautiful and wild public lands, including these Roadless Areas, are a key part of our shared national heritage. They make America great, and they are one of the reasons that I feel most grateful to live here. I look forward to revisiting the areas that I previously listed, to exploring Roadless Areas across many other states, and to sharing them with future generations of kids and grandkids. I only hope that the administration will allow that to happen. For these reasons, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Thank you