FS-2025-0001-608087

Submitted via www.regulations.gov RIN 0596–AD66 US Forest Service, USDA Joshua White, Acting Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Removal of 2001 Roadless Rule, EIS and Economic Impacts Dear Director White, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Removal of the Roadless Rule. We did not support the Roadless Rule when it was forced through in 2000. Eliminating proper forest management is never a good plan. After timber harvesting and thinning were stopped, grazing curtailed, species used as weapons against common sense practices, and the Roadless Rule passed forests, particularly across the west, declined health-wise rapidly and lead to catastrophic fires. We were subjected to several of them. Prior to all of this there was selective timber harvesting, with the timber companies, mostly local businesses, maintaining existing roads and building new ones where needed with terrain and drainage needs considered. Water was abundant and wildlife flourished side by side with livestock grazing, both using water sources developed by ranchers. Recreational users loved coming to the forests, most had done so for generations. Local residents had access to firewood, helping keep the forest cleaned up. Societies, cultures, and economies were meshed together, loving and caring for the local environment. Then when the outside groups seeking an easy way to make money came in they used animals, plants, bugs, etc., as tools to stop the wise use of our resources and used no science besides self-created “papers”. They have never done an on the ground project to benefit any of the species they profess to protect. In fact, some of these species have either declined (loach & spikedace minnows), or when properly studied, discovered to not be limited at all (New Mexico meadow jumping mouse). Rescinding the Roadless Rule doesn’t mean roads will be built everywhere. Some areas are not conducive to that kind of activity, but the local forester and experts can make that decision based on real conditions. Many of the areas closed had viable timber available on them. When contracts are large enough or smaller ones in close proximity to each other it makes more economic sense for timbermen, which is important for them but also for forest health, local economies & communities, plus local, state, and federal tax revenues. That’s so important for counties like Greenlee in Arizona where most of the land is Federal. The user fees went from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tens of thousands. Those dollars go for schools and roads. Fires are so costly not only as they are being fought, but the costs continue for many years due to flooding, dead trees falling, lost homes, businesses, animals, both domestic and wild, and tourism. We appreciate this move towards common sense forest management. The forest, our communities, businesses, and wildlife desperately need it! Respectfully, Bill & Barbara Marks