1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
Own letter
The comment
I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have done air quality monitoring with the state of Wisconsin for the last 8 years. In that time, we’ve seen unprecedented impacts from wildfires in Canada and neighboring states resulting in the worst air quality ever recorded in the state just this past July. This recision is being proposed under the guise contributing to the prevention of wildfires. However rescinding this rule to potentially allow road development in previously undeveloped areas would do just the opposite. Recent research found that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely to occur near roads than in roadless forests, underscoring that more roads are not the answer to wildfire risk. The Roadless Rule already provides flexibility for fuels treatments and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. Beyond my concerns from a public health standpoint, many of my hobbies rely on the resources protected by the Roadless Rule. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of our nation's most intact fish and wildlife habitat, protected clean water and sustained pristine fishing opportunities. These forests, like the Chequamegon-Nicolet national forest that I’ve hiked, camped and fished in many times, provide clean air and water and are the backbone of a $1.3 trillion outdoor recreation economy that supports 5.2 million jobs. It makes economic sense to keep this rule in place. Due to the public health and economic concerns mentioned above, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule.