Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The thrill of watching a kingfisher dip and dive over the Madison River is not something I take for granted. I hike and camp frequently in national parks, national forests, BLM lands, and wilderness areas across the region, and one of my favorite rides is the Continental Divide Trail portion that runs near my town, precisely because I do not have to deal with cars or other vehicles. My town's economy depends on outdoor recreation, which means the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not an abstraction to me. Rescinding it threatens both what I go out there for and the economic base of the community I live in. I oppose the proposed rescission filed under Docket FS-2025-0001 and ask that the agency consider the following. The Potosi area in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, one of the inventoried roadless areas directly affected by this proposal, is a place that means a great deal to me and my family. I have spent many days hiking and recreating there. My partner and I first said I love you while camped nearby. The ability to go into the wilderness and enjoy the peace and fruitfulness of a natural ecosystem is one of the pure joys in the world, and that is precisely what the current rule protects. The Highlands, Middle Mtn. / Tobacco Roots, and Basin Creek areas on the same forest matter to me for the same reasons. Montana holds 235 inventoried roadless areas totaling 6,395,392 acres, and the proposal would put all of it at greater risk. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for rescission. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." If that finding was accurate enough to anchor the original rule, the agency owes a clear explanation of why it no longer controls. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposed rescission with this language, and explain why the policy reversal is warranted in light of these findings. The ignition data reinforces the concern. The DEIS also records that "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." Opening these areas to road construction would bring ignition rates closer to the roaded baseline. The agency has not quantified the expected increase in human-caused ignitions that would follow from new road access or weighed that increase against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. It must do so before finalizing any rescission. The small-business analysis compounds the problem. The agency's proposal certifies no significant impact on small entities while, as the record itself shows, "the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." The guides and outfitters who hold permits to operate in areas like the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are not a national average. Spreading an aggregate loss across every small firm in the sector nationwide obscures the concentrated harm to the businesses that actually operate in these specific roadless areas. The certification should be withdrawn and replaced with an analysis focused on the entities actually holding permits in the potentially affected areas. Finally, The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. My family's attachment to Potosi, my livelihood's connection to outdoor recreation in the Northern Rockies, and the 1,287 municipal water intakes across the Northern region that sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas all represent real reliance on the protections the current rule provides. An agency reversing course is obligated to identify and weigh the interests its prior policy created. The agency must address the reliance interests submitted through this comment process, including this one, and explain how they were weighed in reaching its final determination. Sincerely, Jordan Straub West Yellowstone Montana

Public Comment Submission Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 Proposed Rule: Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To Whom It May Concern: Please accept these comments on behalf of Bob and Diane Hutton, retired U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employees with 40 years of dedicated agency service each, who are also active sportsmen and Montana residents. Based on our combined 80 years of direct experience managing National Forest System lands across Oregon, Utah, Idaho, and primarily the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, we strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Our careers directly spanned the critical program areas at the center of this debate: timber, fire, range, invasive species, and trails. Having spent decades implementing these exact programs, we know rolling back roadless protections will cause severe fiscal, ecological, and operational harm to the agency and public lands. 1. The Road Maintenance Backlog and Staffing Collapse Working in timber and trail management, we witnessed a continuous decline in agency staffing, equipment, and budgets. The USFS manages an unsustainable network of over 370,000 miles of road while facing a deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $8 billion. • Operational Impossibility: The agency lacks the workforce and heavy equipment to maintain its existing footprint. Thousands of miles of road have already been downgraded or abandoned because the agency cannot service them. • Fiscal Irresponsibility: It is managerially irresponsible to open Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) to new road construction when the agency cannot safely manage current infrastructure. New roads strip resources away from existing, heavily used recreation roads and trails. 2. Lack of Capacity to Treat Road-Induced Noxious Weeds Our experience in range and invasive species management highlights a stark reality: roads are the primary vectors for noxious weeds. • The Vectors: Ground disturbances from road building rapidly colonize with invasive species like spotted knapweed and hound's-tongue. These weeds hitchhike on vehicles and spread deep into forest interiors, destroying native range forage and ruining critical winter range for elk and mule deer. • The Workforce Deficit: Managing infestations requires multi-year monitoring and chemical or biological treatment. The USFS lacks the field employees and seasonal crews required to treat existing roadside weed corridors. Opening IRAs to road construction will create unmanageable weed highways that a depleted workforce cannot contain. 3. Roads Drive Human-Caused Wildfires Working in fire management, we know that proponents often argue roads are necessary for wildfire suppression access. Our experience and historical data show the exact opposite: roads introduce the risk. • The Ignition Risk: Over 90% of human-caused wildfires start within half a mile of a road. In Montana, human-caused ignitions on National Forest lands are eight times higher within 100 yards of a road than in roadless blocks. • The Vulnerability: Building roads into pristine IRAs actively invites motorized human pressure and accidental ignitions into remote, high-risk areas, putting communities and our former wildland firefighting colleagues at greater risk. 4. Flawed Economic Projections: Recreation vs. Subsidized Timber As sportsmen who hunt in Montana, we understand that the economic engine of the modern West is driven by intact habitats, not subsidized timber extraction. • The Economic Reality: Outdoor recreation generates 4.9% of Montana’s GDP ($3.8 billion annually) and supports over 32,000 jobs. Pristine roadless areas are the exact backcountry spaces that draw hunters and anglers who fuel local economies. • The Subsidy Trap: Conversely, building timber roads into remote terrain is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. With declining housing starts and deflated timber prices, the cost of building and decommissioning rugged timber roads far outpaces the commercial value of the timber retrieved. It represents a net-negative return on investment for taxpayers. Conclusion Based on our 80 years of collective service, we know the 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the most effective, fiscally sound conservation policies the agency has ever implemented. It protects the agency from taking on unmaintainable infrastructure liabilities while safeguarding intact habitats. We urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, Bob and Diane Hutton Retired U.S. Forest Service Employees (80 Years Combined Service) Specialized in Timber, Fire, Range, Invasives, and Trails Montana Residents & Sportsmen

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. 50 years living in NCDE & Yellowstone Region has given me solace based in truth so cannot tolerate rescission in exchange for marketization of public lands. RR means protections not their removal.RR lands mean connectivity for species survival. Rescission displaces threatened species. ESA listed grizzly bear requires best science. Rescission shuns it and will prove fatal for grizzly populations. Cited lands mirror grizzly DPS compliance. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically inventoried RR areas: Lost Water Canyon (9,251 acres), Custer NF, MTBurnt Mountain (10,698 acres), Custer NF, MT Black Butte (871 acres), Custer NF, MT Red Lodge Creek Hellroaring (17,210 acres), Custer NF, MTOkanogan-Wenatchee NF (1,006,000 acres), Okanogan NF, WAGifford Pinchot National Forest (213,000 acres), Gifford Pinchot National Forest, WAMt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, WALiberty Bell (108,495 acres), Okanogan NF, WACuster Gallatin NF (848,000 acres), Custer Gallatin NF, MTBob Marshall Wilderness Complex (1,483,000 acres),Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, MT Paine Gulch (7,875 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTMt. High (33,484 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTMcgregor - Thompson (27,211 acres), Lolo NF, MTDeep Creek (7,669 acres), Lolo NF, MT Trout Creek (30,851 acres), Kootenai NF, MTCataract (9,442 acres), Lolo NF, MTBlue Slide (17,505 acres), Wenatchee NF, WA Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF (415,000 acres), Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, WA , Okanogan NF,Pasayten Rim (17,074 acres), Okanogan NF, WASawtooth (15,693 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTwin Sisters (13,051 acres), Colville NF, WA Bridger-Teton National Forest (1,417,000 acres), Bridger-Teton National Forest, WyWest Pioneer (248,631 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTBear - Marshall - Scapegoat - Swan (344,022 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Bob Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan (334,275 acres), Flathead NF, MT East Pioneer (145,082 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTWest Big Hole (133,563 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTMadison (127,859 acres), Gallatin NF, MTSelway-Bitterroot (114,953 acres), Bitterroot NF,MTHoodoo (105,162 acres), Lolo NF, MTAllan Mountain (104,184 acres), Bitterroot NF, MTSnowcrest Mountain (97,649 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MT Freezeout Mountain (97,305 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MT Middle Mtn. / Tobacco Roots (96,487 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTTuchuck (17,730 acres), Flathead NF, MTThompson Seton (52,235 acres), Flathead NF, MTMt. Henry (13,603 acres), Kootenai NF, MTOlympic National Forest (86,000 acres), Olympic National Forest,WASapphires (66,619 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF,MTBear Creek (8,123 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MT MTLittle Bighorn (133,949 acres), Bighorn NF, WyoSleeping Child (x1074) (21,433 acres), Bitterroot NF, MT, Bitterroot NF, MTDry Canyon Breaks (4,821 acres), Colville NF, WANorth Absaroka (21,063 acres), Custer NF, MTCrazy Mountain (82,093 acres), Gallatin NF, MTBridger (45,059 acres), Gallatin NF, MTHyalite - Porcupine - Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area (143,991 acres), Gallatin NF, MTGallatin Fringe (51,571 acres), Gallatin NF, MT Cabin Creek Wildlife Management Area Ocd (35,048 acres), Gallatin NF, MTWAHellgate Gulch (16,821 acres), Helena NF, MTBig Snowy Mountains Wsa (88,003 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTCastle Mountains (29,409 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Crazy Mountains (24,942 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Box Canyon (12,584 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- Big Snowies (9,258 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT North Fork Smith (8,444 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Tenderfoot - Deep Creek (85,614 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Eagle Park (5,912 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- Calf Creek (10,108 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- Pilgrim Creek (44,608 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Highwood Baldy (15,305 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Highwoods (24,378 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- TW Mountain (8,388 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Granite Mountain (10,338 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Lewis & Clark NF, MT Middle Fork Judith Wsa (81,131 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Bluff Mountain (38,060 acres), Custer NF, MtLine Creek Plateau (24,825 acres), Custer NF, MT, Custer NF, Mt Shoshone NF, WyoWilderness Study Area (51,961 acres), Targhee NF, Wyo- West Slope Tetons (47,448 acres), Targhee NF, Wy- Silver King (64,289 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, Montana, - Selkirks (95,967 acres), Idaho Panhandle NF, Idaho-Grizzly Peak (7,441 acres), Kootenai NF, Montana I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects threatened species and of climate change.I ask that the agency respond to each of them.I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Dan Sullivan Chanhassen, MN

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas I am writing about sit inside the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in Montana: Cattle Gulch at 19,390 acres, O'Neil Creek at 6,279 acres, Basin Creek at 9,500 acres, Potosi at 5,194 acres, Middle Mountain and the Tobacco Roots at 96,487 acres, and the Highlands at 20,044 acres. Montana holds 235 inventoried roadless areas totaling 6,395,392 acres. These are the places I am commenting to protect. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that elk depend on roadless conditions, then walks away from that finding without drawing any conclusion about what rescission would do to elk populations or to the hunters who pursue them. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. That is a documented, causal relationship between road access and elk mortality. The areas I named in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are elk country. Citing a survival effect and then projecting no population-level consequence is not analysis; it is a citation without a conclusion. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity across the areas that would be opened under this proposal, and that it do so in terms specific enough to be reviewed. The same pattern appears on habitat fragmentation. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. That is a wide and significant range. The affected environment runs to 40.1 million acres nationally. Nowhere in the document does the agency apply that cited range to the acreage actually at stake. A finding that biodiversity losses could fall anywhere between 13 and 75 percent, left unattached to any landscape of defined size, tells a reader nothing about what this rule change would actually do. The Tobacco Roots unit alone covers 96,487 acres; the six areas I named together exceed 156,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. The agency should apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment and explain what outcome it projects, rather than leaving a number floating without application. Water quality is where the analysis falls shortest. The DEIS states that skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." Across the Northern Region, which includes Montana, 1,287 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency puts a sediment figure in the record and then projects nothing about where that sediment goes. Downstream communities and water systems connected to these Montana drainages are left without any assessment of what increased road building and timber activity in roadless watersheds would deliver to their intakes. The agency must quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas. Finally, the proposal itself invited the very reliance interests the agency then failed to assess. The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. I rely on the 2001 rule as the legal baseline that keeps road building out of the areas I named. When an agency changes course, it is required to identify and account for what its prior policy created. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it proceeds further. Sincerely, Nathaniel Meadows Bozeman, Montana

I comment to voice my preference for Alternative 1, no action 1. Roads and fire: Rescinding the Roadless Rule is being justified partly through wildfire management without adequately accounting for the relationship between roads, human-caused ignition and ecological disturbance. Please retain roadless protections while allowing targeted fuel and fire-management work where science shows it is necessary. 2. Water and resilience: Please consider the value of intact roadless watersheds as Montana faces hotter, drier conditions and more severe fire weather. Protecting headwaters, soils and intact forests should be part of building climate resilience, not treated as an obstacle to it. 3. Future generations: Not every acre of public land needs a road or a commercial use. Please retain the Roadless Rule and protect these lands as an inheritance for future generations, while continuing necessary science-based forest and fire management. Because of this, I stongly support Alternative 1: No Action. I recreate on readless areas. The peace, the non-intrusion of motor vehocles enhance the experience for me, for the wildlife which inhabits these land. i recreate mosltly on the roadless areas in the BEaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, an area I call home. The areas designate wilderness and/or roadlesswere previously inaccessable until higher powered and geear receational vehicle came onthe scene. Many of htese have non-monetary value, and are treasured not because of the of the financial proifit, but because of their intrinsec worth. I a world full of nose and distraction, we as people need area of quiet sanctuary.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool. I served in a rural volunteer fire department, and from that direct, on-the-ground experience, I can reassure you that the greatest sources of wildland fire ignitions in my rural fire district were humans, and most of those ignitions occurred close to settlement and accessible by interagency firefighting forces, including my own. Adding more roads to the national forests will increase the likelihood of human-caused fires. We need the roadless rule to preserve water quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat. The national forests already have too many roads! I am a supporting member of the Montana Logging Association, and I do not oppose logging and legitimate multiple uses of our national forests. A better approach to rescinding the roadless rule would be to assess the rule in specific places and modify them accordingly to preserve natural values while enabling small forestry operations to sustain small businesses, timber dependent communities, and families. A blanket recission is crude and will lead to needless degradation of our precious national forests. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, Mark Fiege Montana -- Madison County / Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

Subject: Roadless Rule Recission Draft EIS Introduction I had almost a 40 career with the Forest Service working on the Nez Perce, Clearwater, Deerlodge, Bighorn, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests and the Pawnee National Grassland. I retired in 2010 but remained on a type 2 fire team until the fall of 2019. The last 20 years of my career were on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF. After retirement I continue to use the B-D NF for hunting, fishing. trail hiking and riding. I don't know why the USDA has taken on this additional workload of an EIS when travel plans are not completed for all national forests. Because the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF does not have a travel plan, resource damage and user conflicts are rampant. I am going to defer my input to the comments provided by the National Association of Retired Forest Service Retirees (NARFSE) letter dated September 3, 2026. The board of NAFSR has recent and extensive experience with managing the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) and Roadless Areas (RAs). If the decision maker cannot utilize the recommendations from NAFSR in full then I recommend to the Roadless Rule not be rescinded. Loosing 70% of the RAs as proposed by Alternative 3 is not acceptable. The benefits of RAs for wildlife security and clean water are well documented. I fear that if the miles of open roads are increased on NFs, the big game will be pushed off of the National Forests and on to private land and unavailable for public land hunters to hunt. The Forest Service does not need any more roads. The backlog of unmaintained roads is well documented. This administration has gutted funding for road maintenance. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge has only two people on the road crew when they formerly had 8. The Custer-Gallatin NF doesn't have a road crew. I my area a number of roads are in horrible condition. One of my concerns is the ability of the Forest Service to implement this EIS with the current workforce. It seems like a top-down approach is inevitable, unless not rescinding the Roadless Rule is chosen, When timber harvest is allowed in RAs, I have no problem allowing for harvest of large diameter lodgepole pine. Large diameter Douglas fir and ponderosa pine should be left. Conclusion I cannot overemphasize the need to utilize the comments from the National Association of Retired Forest Service Employees. Thank you for considering my thoughts on this important issue. Introduction

Having spent many years studying the Roadless Rule as an outfitter in the Absaroka-Beartooth and Lee Metcalf wilderness areas, as a hunter-conservationist, and as a Montana private landowner bordering Beaverhead-Deerlodge national forest which is presently heavily beetle-killed and largely untreated forests. I have observed few benefits and more unintended consequences of strict roadless and wilderness designations. While wilderness and roadless areas provide important habitat protection and preserve natural landscapes, they can also create significant challenges for effective wildlife and forest management. In many cases, state and federal wildlife managers face restrictions that make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to monitor and manage wildlife populations effectively. For example, the use of helicopters for capturing and collaring animals for research, population monitoring, and endangered species recovery efforts can be limited by access restrictions. These constraints can also hinder habitat improvement projects, water developments for wildlife and fisheries, disease monitoring, invasive species control, and timely responses to changing environmental conditions. From a forest health perspective, active management is essential to maintaining resilient ecosystems. Douglas-fir and Montana's native pine species are among the largest and fastest-growing living organisms on the landscape. When unmanaged they become evasive, these forests can provide sustainable habitat that supports a wide diversity of flora and fauna while also contributing to water quality, carbon storage, and economic vitality. Active forest management, including thinning, fuel reduction, and restoration treatments, can create healthier and more resilient forests that are better able to withstand insects, disease, drought, and catastrophic wildfire. One of the challenges in public land policy is that forest ecosystems operate on long timelines, like centuries to develop fauna and flora diverity. Decisions made today to produce measurable positive results will take only decades not centuries to show positive results. Delaying management actions until problems become severe frequently results in fewer options and greater ecological and economic costs. Responsible intervention, guided by sound science and local experience, can help ensure that our forests remain productive, diverse, and sustainable for future generations. As someone whose property borders these forests, I have firsthand concerns about the impacts that unmanaged fuel loads, dead timber, and catastrophic wildfires can have on wildlife habitat, neighboring private lands, watersheds, and rural communities. I strongly support conservation and the preservation of wild landscapes. However, conservation should also include practical, science-based management tools that allow wildlife professionals and land managers to actively maintain healthy forests, sustain wildlife populations, reduce wildfire risk, and respond to ecological challenges as conditions change. True conservation is not simply locking landscapes away from human influence. It is ensuring that future generations inherit healthy forests, abundant wildlife, clean water, and resilient ecosystems. Achieving that goal requires a thoughtful balance between preservation and active stewardship, recognizing that well-managed forests can deliver ecological benefits within decades rather than leaving future generations to address problems that have been allowed to grow for the past 50 years. No new wilderness is needed and soften wilderness hard lines. Reverce the roadless act. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Jack Atcheson Whitehall, MT

REJECT THE OPEN UNLESS DESIGNATED CLOSED PROPOSAL FOR TRAILS. As a hiker and supporter of American Hiking Society I am calling on the Forest Service to reject the proposed open unless designated closed proposal in the Travel Management Rule Notice of Intent. I have worked as a Trails Technician for the Forest Service in Philipsburg, Montana and I know for a fact this rule would affect hiking trails on that district, to say nothing of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest as a whole. This would greatly impact already dwindling Federally protected land and create conflicts between motorized users and non-motorized users. Our country is built around vehicles and machines that burn petroleum so that we can all get to where we’re going extremely fast. Why not keep these lands safe from continued encroachment of unnecessary development that once again center these machines instead of human beings and ecosystems. Please reject this proposal outright. The Travel Management rule was built upon fifty years of established standards. The rule relies on a standard that trails are closed unless designated opened. The proposed revisions would flip this to open to motorized vehicles unless explicitly closed for all new trails and an annual review of trails that are closed to motorized use. As a hiker, this means the trails that my family and I have enjoyed and stewarded for half a century could be opened to unintended uses—putting my safety at risk and forever changing my recreation experience across National Forests. This proposal would open a Pandora's box of devastating consequences for all user groups, both motorized and non-motorized. This would reopen old wounds and ignite new issues related to user conflict, visitor safety and pose challenges to the maintenance of trails by volunteers and partners. The Forest Service must reject this 'open unless closed' proposal in the final rule.

The administration's reasons for rescinding the roadless rule are not accurate. Most wildfires are caused by humans within 1/2 mile of a road. Fuels reduction work may be accomplished through control burns or direct work by fuels crews. I know because I did this sort of work on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in roadless areas. Here are some of the negative impacts of more roads. The Forest Service does not have the resources to maintain its existing roads and trails. We had to cut 75 trees out of a 3-mile section of Forest Service built trail to access our favorite hunting spots. In a roadless area. More roads harm wildlife habitat. Roaded areas increase the likelihood of human-caused fires. New roads and logging will introduce noxious weeds to areas that are currently weed-free. Who will pay for these roads? Most roadless areas contain small, poor quality timber. It is not economical for a lumber company to build a road to access this timber. Roadless areas also contain soil that is not suitable for roads. Due to the Forest Service's inability to maintain new roads, they will erode. Sediment will be deposited in streambeds, damaging fish habitat. Finally, as a hunter and fisherman, roadless areas have been invaluable to my family's enjoyment of the outdoors for almost 30 years. I harvested my first elk at age 12 in a roadless area before it was officially roadless, and my latest elk, 28 years later, in that same roadless area. Loss of roadless protections will likely cause permanent harm to these incredible wild places. Recinding the Roadless Rule serves only resource extraction and special interests. This is not the will of the people and must not happen.

The roadless rule needs to be rescinded. Since it was implemented it has resulted in no access or burdensome access to hunting areas and fishable lakes that were once accessible by logging roads within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The obliteration of once available logging roads has added costs to wildland fire fighting and forest management accessibility. 20 plus years of major wind fallen trees, beetle killed trees and overgrown areas have given rise to wildland fires in this National Forest. This rule needs to be eliminated to all for active forest management to grow a healthy forest, provide for renewable wood products, a renewed timber industry and associated jobs.