As a California resident living near the Sequoia National Forest, I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule. Allowing road‑building, logging, and development in Inventoried Roadless Areas would cause widespread and irreversible harm to some of the most intact public lands remaining in the National Forest system. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would: • Remove protections from 45 million acres of the wildest, most intact National Forest lands, including millions of acres across the West. These areas represent some of the last large, connected landscapes still functioning under natural ecological processes. • Open currently protected Roadless Areas to road construction, development, and commercial logging. These activities would fundamentally change the character and ecological integrity of places that have remained largely undisturbed for decades. • Increase wildfire risk in backcountry forests. Roadless areas are naturally more fire‑resilient and less prone to human‑caused ignitions. Studies show fires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless forests, and logging can further elevate fire hazards by increasing fuel loads and drying out forest conditions. • Threaten clean drinking water sources. Roadless areas protect critical watersheds relied upon by millions of people. Expanding road networks and logging would increase sedimentation, degrade water quality, and undermine the natural filtration these forests provide. • Degrade habitat for sensitive species and fragment resilient ecosystems. Roadless areas contain some of the best remaining habitat in the National Forest system—places still shaped by natural processes that wildlife evolved with. Opening them to development would create more fragmented, degraded habitat at a time when intact ecosystems are already scarce. • Harm Indigenous cultural values and access to traditional foods, fiber, and medicines. According to the draft EIS, most Tribal governments consulted expressed opposition to rescinding the rule. • Increase taxpayer burden. The National Forest road system already faces a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The Forest Service does not have the staff or funding to maintain existing roads, and adding more would only deepen this backlog and strain limited resources. • Disregard longstanding public sentiment. The original Roadless Rule received over a million supportive public comments—one of the largest responses to any federal administrative proposal at the time. More recent comment periods have shown overwhelming support for keeping these protections in place. For communities like mine near a national forest, roadless areas are essential for clean water, wildlife habitat, climate resilience, and the quiet, undeveloped character that defines our landscape in America. I urge the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Rule and continue protecting these irreplaceable landscapes.