FS-2025-0001-601737

I oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge USDA to retain the existing protections. As a Washington resident and accountant, I do not believe the projected timber revenues justify the costs and risks of opening protected forests to additional roads and logging. Revenue alone does not establish a public benefit. A responsible financial analysis must account for road construction, ongoing maintenance, environmental damage, and losses to recreation and other local economic activity. USDA’s acknowledgment of a substantial existing road and bridge maintenance backlog makes expanding those obligations especially concerning. The greatest value of these lands is that they remain largely untouched. Clean water, connected wildlife habitat, carbon storage, cultural resources, and opportunities to experience undeveloped forests have lasting value that timber receipts cannot adequately measure. Once roads fragment a forest or mature trees are removed, those values cannot simply be purchased back. I am also concerned about the burden repeal would place on Tribal governments and communities seeking to protect sacred sites, traditional gathering areas, and subsistence resources. Requiring them to defend these places project by project weakens the certainty provided by national protections. Wildfire management deserves serious attention, but it does not justify a nationwide repeal. USDA should demonstrate why targeted measures under existing protections cannot meet specific needs and weigh the increased risk of human-caused fires associated with greater access. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Rule. These forests are public assets held for future generations. Their enduring value deserves greater weight than uncertain revenues from extraction.