Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, hunter, and President of the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists, I am writing as an individual to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative and retain the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
I have spent many years exploring, riding, hunting, and helping maintain trails throughout the Bitterroot National Forest. Many of the trails and landscapes that I value most are located within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). These areas provide opportunities for primitive recreation, protect intact watersheds and wildlife habitat, and preserve large, relatively undeveloped landscapes for future generations.
In the Bitterroot Valley where I live, many of the backcountry trails that I know and value are located within IRAs. Examples include trails in the Alan Mountain, Sleeping Child, Stony Mountain, Sapphire, Blue Joint, and Selway-Bitterroot Roadless Areas. These include trails such as Warm Springs Creek, Fire Creek, Porcupine Creek, Sleeping Child, Bald Top, Willow Creek, Bitterroot-Rock Creek Divide, Blue Joint, Razorback Ridge, Bare Cone, and Blodgett Canyon.
These are not simply areas on a map to me. I have personally explored and helped maintain many of these trails, and I have seen firsthand the value of maintaining their relatively undeveloped character. The combination of dispersed recreation, intact landscapes, wildlife habitat, and a network of primitive trails provides an experience that cannot be recreated once roads and associated development fragment these areas.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would remove an important national baseline protecting these characteristics. I understand that rescission would not automatically authorize road construction or timber harvest in every roadless area; rather, management decisions would increasingly be governed by individual forest plans and other applicable authorities. Nevertheless, removing the national protections would create greater opportunity for future decisions that could introduce roads, timber harvest, and other development into areas that have remained largely intact.
Road construction is particularly consequential because a road is not simply another type of forest management activity. Roads can fragment habitat, alter drainage and watersheds, facilitate additional development and motorized access, and change the character of surrounding trail systems and recreational experiences. Once an intact roadless landscape is fragmented by roads, its primitive character is difficult or impossible to restore.
I also believe the value of these lands extends well beyond the communities immediately surrounding them. When I travel to other parts of the country, I actively seek out the primitive and relatively undeveloped landscapes protected by the Roadless Rule. These areas are part of a national system of public lands that provides opportunities for recreation, solitude, hunting, wildlife viewing, and other experiences that are increasingly difficult to find.
I have focused on the roadless areas near my home because these are the places I know best. However, my concern is broader. I believe the remaining Inventoried Roadless Areas throughout the National Forest System represent an important national resource and should continue to receive consistent protection.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you for considering my comments and for your stewardship of these important public lands.