FS-2025-0001-612090

October 6, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Forest Service Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Docket FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 To Whom It May Concern: I live in Deer Lodge, Montana, have worked in Montana’s forest products industry for about 15 years, and serve as a volunteer firefighter. I am submitting this comment in my personal capacity. I support rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule and adopting Alternative 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In communities like Deer Lodge, timber supports steady employment for mill workers, loggers, truck drivers, mechanics, electricians, and many other skilled trades. Those businesses also support local suppliers, families, and public services. Losing a mill means losing much more than one employer. It can weaken the entire network needed to harvest timber, manufacture wood products, and carry out forest treatments. Rebuilding that capacity after it disappears is difficult. A dependable supply of economically usable timber is essential to keeping that infrastructure in Montana. Decisions on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Helena-Lewis and Clark forests are particularly relevant to my community. Timber can be abundant on the landscape and still be unavailable because access is restricted or the cost of reaching it makes a project impractical. Removing the Roadless Rule could allow better project boundaries, more practical access, and more efficient haul routes where forest plans permit them. Even incremental improvements can matter to a rural mill and the contractors who supply it. I recognize the limits of this proposal. Many roadless acres are steep, remote, or otherwise unsuitable for economical harvest. Rescission would not guarantee a large increase in timber production, eliminate litigation, or solve agency staffing and budget problems. My support is based on giving land managers the opportunity to evaluate workable projects on their merits. A modest increase in accessible timber, or a better-designed project that becomes economically feasible, can still provide meaningful local benefits. As a volunteer firefighter, I also want forest managers to have practical options for addressing hazardous fuels and providing safe access where conditions justify it. Strategically located roads can provide access and useful control points for suppression. Mechanical treatment and prescribed fire should be considered where appropriate to the forest type, terrain, and management objectives. I am not suggesting that every fire can be prevented or that every forest should be treated. I support evaluating those tools locally, with firefighter safety and community protection among the considerations. Access comes with responsibilities. Road construction and maintenance can affect water quality, habitat, and erosion, and public access can create additional ignition risks. Projects should account for those effects through careful location, maintenance, drainage, and appropriate access restrictions. Providing access for forest management does not require opening every road to unrestricted public travel. I value Montana’s wildlife, watersheds, recreation opportunities, and undeveloped landscapes. Rescinding this rule would leave applicable forest plans, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other legal protections in place. It would not remove congressionally designated wilderness protections. Those safeguards provide a framework for deciding where management is appropriate and where protection should remain the priority. Local conditions and public input should guide those decisions. I ask the Forest Service to consider the importance of retaining the mills and logging businesses needed to implement its forest-management objectives. National estimates of additional timber volume can obscure the value of a workable project to a particular community. Please evaluate benefits in terms of feasible treatments, affordable access, and timber that can actually be harvested and delivered. If the rule is rescinded, implementation will matter. The Forest Service should identify practical opportunities with local communities, Tribes, landowners, and industry; provide the staffing and resources to develop them; and track results beyond acres planned or timber sold. Communities need to understand what work can proceed, what remains constrained, and what has actually been accomplished. I support full rescission because it would remove an additional nationwide restriction and allow forest managers to make decisions suited to the lands and communities they serve. That flexibility would be a useful step toward sustaining Montana’s timber infrastructure and improving the options available for responsible forest management. Thank you for considering my comments. Christopher T. Anderson Deer Lodge, Montana