To whom it may concern,
I object to the repeal of the USFS Roadless Rule, as implemented in 2001 and judicially reconfirmed in 2006 and 2009. It is an appropriate, balanced, and science-grounded rule that protects our greatest natural resources. USFS land is managed under a multiple-use mandate, with both recreation and extraction interests. A majority of land under USFS control is already accessible by roads and provides ample land and growth capacity for the timber industry.
The areas protected under the Roadless Rule are one of this country's greatest successes of responsible stewardship. As a child of the Bozeman, MT area, I grew up recreating, exploring, and hunting in and about the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The relatively minimal (~$100s of millions) timber industry revenue is balanced by the anticipated short-term financial impacts to recreation, and is catastrophically outweighed by the long-term damage to some of the last remaining truly wild areas in the US (both the contiguous 48 and the broader country).
The Roadless Rule additionally protects our forests from wildfires, the great majority of which are human-caused and which occur disproportionately near roads. The Roadless Rule incorporates reasonable exceptions for USFS and authorized contractors to perform preventative and responsive wildfire operations, whether in the form of limited timber harvest or emergency road construction. This directly contradicts some of the intended rationale behind the repeal.
The Roadless Rule is overdue for science-based updates, but a full repeal is an irresponsible abdication of stewardship to the conservation portion of the USFS's mandate, and is unlikely to accomplish substantial long-term economic benefits.
Thank you.