I believe the Roadless Rule should stay in place to protect the environmental health of its designated areas. The proposed changes are not well supported by US citizens and are rather unpopular. one of the rationales given by the USDA for this change is improved wildfire management due to increased flexibility in the decision making of local management agencies. There is evidence that the introduction of roads, and the human activity that follows, increases the risk of wildfire. The highest wildfire ignitions density occurs within 50m of a road (Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2). The USDA acknowledges this fact but in its proposal but does not include any plan to how they will mitigate this risk in their proposal. The proposal cites that this change is needed because of “changing national priorities”. I do not have confidence that this proposal will truly center the interest of local management organizations. Im afraid various actors will be able to take advantage of the absence of the Roadless Rule for their own financial interests and not in the interest of the local communities. The proposal states timber harvest as another rationale for taking away the Roadless Rule. Timber harvesting in these areas will harm the ecological health of these areas, including water quality. These areas must be protected not extracted. The USDA has not provided a plan that addresses how these concerns will be mitigated. These areas contain an intrinsic, historic, social, and ecological value to US citizens and that value should continue to be protected by the Roadless Rule.