FS-2025-0001-244729

I am an avid outdoor recreationist, backcountry angler, spouse of a backcountry hunter whose hunts feed our family, daughter of a retired USFS and State wildland firefighter, and military spouse who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests all over this country and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. These roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access and game migration, increase fire risk, and reduce opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. Additionally, the rescission would remove important protections for more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. Because of this, I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule as is. Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy and heritage, and rescinding the Roadless Rule would only be remembered as am embarrassing mistake in history books.