FS-2025-0001-593774

I am writing to reject and oppose the proposed recission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. As noted in the background summary, the Roadless Rule was established to "provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System". The rule has been effective in its stated aims, which is to protect areas that are not designated Wilderness and maintain them for the benefit of US citizens. Here in Washington, I have been a beneficiary of these roadless areas. One such area I have enjoyed regularly with my family is the Alpine Lakes Adjacency, an area of over 50,000 acres that provides recreational hiking opportunities for my family. The quiet that pervades this space is a welcome escape from the busy lives we have every day. Similarly, the Goat Rocks Adjacency, Packwood Lake, White Pass, Carlton Ridge, Dark Divide, and other inventoried roadless areas are places I visit and recreate in. Rescinding the roadless rule will bring these areas irreparable harm. Rescinding the roadless rule will lead to resource degradation (introduction of invasive species, water contamination, etc.) which will counteract one of the stated aims of increased recreational opportunity. Mineral, Timber, and other extractive industries will reduce the available recreational areas and the damages are multi-generational. Public lands should remain available for public recreational use without these negative impacts. Furthermore, one of the rationale used to promote recission is to decrease wildfire risk. The data tell a different story. Research from the Pacific Biodiversity Institute show that the vast majority of wildfires start within half a mile of roads. Extending roads will simply increase wildfire acreage. Another study by The Wilderness Society bolsters this claim in finding that roaded areas have a 4x increased likelihood to have wildfire starts than roadless areas. The toll from these wildfires is both economic and emotional. Wildfire has consumed countless acres, homes, and businesses in addition to lives lost by residents and firefighters. Rescinding the roadless rule will increase wildfires. The existing rule allows for emergency wildfire response and allows for fuel management; these benefits can can be obtained while maintaining the rule. The Forest Service currently struggles to maintain the existing roads because the current and past administrations have raided their funds for other projects. Just a few weeks go, I hiked on a trail in a Forest Service area that has not been maintained in several years and is blocked by multiple blowdowns. The Department should not consider expanding the road system, but rather should concentrate efforts on maintaining current roads, trails, and infrastructure. Maintaining a strong national organization can allow consistency across units and allocate resources to the most critical areas while allowing local units to advocate for important local needs. I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns. Again, I am opposed to rescinding the Roadless Rule and urge the Department to move in a direction more consistent with the requests of hundreds of thousands of Roadless Area enthusiasts.