1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
Own letter
The comment
I own a recreational cabin in the Shoshone National Forest. For 16 years I’ve been spending summers here in Wyoming, though my permanent residence is in Illinois. I fish the stream down the hill from my cabin and I hike trails all around me. The proposed change in the Roadless Rule is therefore very important to me. I support the 2001 rule and the protection it provides to our National Forests and I do not support rescinding this rule. Therefore I strongly support the “No Action” Alternative 1 that would maintain protections for our roadless forests, and I strongly oppose Alternatives 2 and 3, which would strip their protections.
The basis for my position is that roadless areas are critical to fresh drinking water, animal habitat, and opportunities for recreational access.
Claims that rescission of the Roadless Rule is necessary to address wildfire risk are not supported by facts. The Roadless Rule already provides flexibility for fuels treatments and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. More importantly, research has shown that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely to occur near roads.
The Forest Service listed a number of concerns regarding road construction and timber harvesting in the 2001 Rule. These concerns were valid then and remain valid now. Rather than rescinding the rule, it would be better to plan and implement science-based forest management to help the Forest Service accomplish its directives and mission objectives.
The USDA cannot afford the roads already in our National Forests, so it makes no sense to build more.