I live in Lolo, Montana and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking. Getting out where it is just us and creation with no noise, no sounds but those which are natural to the woods, is such an important reset for my hiking group and I!
Ten Lakes Basin is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Ten Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area in Kootenai National Forest. Quiet, pristine, far from the hustle and bustle of life.
I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large roadless landscapes can provide relatively intact habitat and connections between protected areas. Roads can fragment habitat and increase human access.
I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Roads require drainage systems, culverts, stream crossings, and ongoing maintenance. Poorly located or maintained roads can contribute sediment to streams and affect aquatic habitat.
I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. Removing the national safeguard while timber-production pressure is increasing could put roadless lands at greater risk.
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA ensure that roadless values are protected through individual forest plans and project-level decisions if the national rule is removed?
I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large roadless landscapes can provide relatively intact habitat and connections between protected areas. Roads can fragment habitat and increase human access.
I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Roads require drainage systems, culverts, stream crossings, and ongoing maintenance. Poorly located or maintained roads can contribute sediment to streams and affect aquatic habitat.
I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. Removing the national safeguard while timber-production pressure is increasing could put roadless lands at greater risk.
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA ensure that roadless values are protected through individual forest plans and project-level decisions if the national rule is removed?
For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.