“I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This…”

I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 1.This proposal to open roadless areas to new roads is completely backwards. The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. 2.Opening these roadless areas to new roads is terrible policy. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. 3.Despite the claims that roads are needed to “manage” forests and reduce fire risk, exactly the opposite is true. Scientific studies have shown that more roads into the backcountry means more fires. Scientific studies using US Forest Service data have quantified across the National Forests, the existence of a road increases the density of ignitions. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. 4.The current public process including this shortened comment period illustrate the public process to repeal this rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations.