I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule either fully or partially. The inventoried roadless areas under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service are amazing and irreplaceable places, and we should continue to protect them from roadbuilding and resource extraction. I live in Washington where roadless areas are some of the most spectacular and distinctive locations in the state. In June, the Teanaways, part of Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, have usually just melted out and it's possible to scramble gentle red rock peaks such as Bean or Earl and have a view of the stunning Stuart Range. Mount Dickerman in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is where my friends scattered the ashes of their beloved golden retriever, and we go up around fourth of July every year to commemorate what a great dog he was. I love the lower Graywolf River in Olympic National Forest, which is accessible all winter and runs blue and clear through a valley lined with ferns and mosses, and I also love ascending Mount Townsend, which on a clear day lets you see five volcanoes at once across the sound. These places make Washington an exceptional place to live and they are also distinctive, important ecological communities that shouldn't be fragmented or disturbed any further. Has the proposed action to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule adequately considered the ecological impact of the change? Has relevant scientific research been considered, particularly with respect to fragmenting and disturbing habitat? I oppose rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule because I do not believe we can undo the fragmentation and loss that will be triggered by lifting these protections, and we should not make this mistake. I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.