I write to oppose the proposed removal of 36 CFR part 294, Subpart B, and to urge the Department to adopt the No Action alternative.
First, the Department's own analysis undercuts its rationale. The preamble concedes that management opportunities from rescission "would be modest and localized." It projects $5.2 to $11.4 million in annual revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service against an estimated $6.1 million in lost recreation benefits. It does this while the agency carries a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges. Adding roads to a system the agency cannot maintain is not stewardship. It shifts a liability onto future budgets and onto the watersheds that unmaintained roads degrade.
Second, the wildfire justification does not require rescission. The 2001 Rule already permits cutting generally small-diameter timber to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire (§ 294.13(b)(1)). It also permits road construction needed to protect public health and safety (§ 294.12(b)(1)). If those exceptions have been applied inconsistently, the remedy is clearer guidance, not the elimination of protections across 58.5 million acres. The preamble itself acknowledges that new access increases the potential for human-caused ignitions.
Third, the proposal disregards the weight of Tribal input. By the Department's own summary, most Tribal governments consulted oppose rescission as a threat to sacred sites, subsistence resources, and water quality. Only 29 of 64 requested consultations had been held. Finalizing this rule before consultation is complete would be inconsistent with the federal trust responsibility under E.O. 13175.
Fourth, "local flexibility" here means forest-by-forest uncertainty. A national rule gives states, Tribes, communities, and businesses a stable baseline. The Idaho and Colorado rules show that tailored state approaches are already available by petition without dismantling the national floor.
Finally, these areas supply clean drinking water, intact habitat, and remote recreation that cannot be restored once they are roaded. Irreversible losses should not be traded for modest and speculative gains.
I respectfully urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rule.