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 am very strongly opposed to the proposed rescinding of the roadless rule on our National Forst lands. I live in Idaho. Our roadless areas have some protections, other areas do not. On the Payette National forest, which surrounds the town I live in, much of the land has been and is heavily roaded and logged. These areas have been permanently altered. They are not pleasant to visit for people or animals. The cover and browse has been irrevocably altered for the animal species that used to inhabit these areas. Some wildlife can adapt to these degradations, most cannot. Roads fragment and degrade animal habitat.
Water quality is degraded at the heads of many watersheds. We value our clean, clear water and continuing to hack new roads through forests to cut more tress is inconsistent with this shared American value.
Some lands are more valuable left as they are. Logging interests will cut trees if new roads are built and still want more. Destroying the roadless areas is forever. The monetary benefits to a few corporations if roadless areas are opened up is fleeting, short term and benefits only a few.
Please allow this very popular safeguard of some of our remaining unroaded areas to stay in place. It is the right thing to do.
Margo Conitz