To the Forest Service:
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to urge the agency to retain it.
I am a hiker and a parent, and I value our national forests because they are some of the last refuges of truly wild nature in this country, places that remain relatively unmolested by human impacts and that still have room for biodiversity to persist on its own terms. My first backpacking trip was as a child in the Inyo National Forest, and walking into country where the roads ended gave me one of my first true feelings of patriotism. I realize that this land is my county and it needs to be protected by its citizens. At its core, our country is the land. Preserving some of it without roads is an act of respect for the country and for the living things that make it what it is. I want my children to grow up in a country where areas of nature can remain untouched by the impacts of roads, and to have the chance to feel what I felt out there. I fear that roads built into these areas will open the way to logging and further tarnish the few pristine places we have left, and that my children will inherit a landscape with nothing like them to experience.
I want to explain why I value land that has not been touched by roads. A road changes a place permanently. It brings fragmentation, erosion, sediment in streams, invasive species, and noise, and it makes the surrounding land easier to log, mine, and develop. Once a road is built, the pristine character of that land is gone. Few places in this country are still large enough and quiet enough to support wildlife that needs space, clean headwaters, and solitude. Roadless areas are among the last of them.
These lands are also valuable because of what they provide without any management or expense. They filter and store water that downstream communities drink. They give wildlife room to move and breed, and they give people a chance to hike, hunt, and fish in country that is still wild. Every road the agency builds is one it must maintain, and the Forest Service already carries a road maintenance backlog it cannot fund. Opening roughly 44 million acres to new road construction would add to that burden and trade a lasting public benefit for short-term gain.
I understand the Department's concern about wildfire and forest health. But the 2001 rule already allows exceptions for fuel reduction and other necessary management, so it does not stop the agency from doing that work. A rule of this magnitude, one that has protected about 59 million acres for 25 years, deserves more than a 30-day comment period and a limited public process. The original rule drew 1.6 million comments and 600 public meetings over 18 months.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule in place. If the agency proceeds, I ask that it extend the comment period, hold public meetings across the affected regions, and fully analyze the effects on water, biodiversity, and the long-term costs to taxpayers.
Thank you for considering my comment.
Benjamin
Resident of Virginia