To the Forest Service:
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B).
I haven been an avid hike for almost 20 years, hiking several times a week (or more). This includes national parks and national forests including the following:
• Angeles National Forest
• Arapaho National Forest
• Carson National Forest
• Cleveland National Forest
• Inyo National Forest
• Lassen National Forest
• Pike National Forest
• Rio Grande National Forest
• Roosevelt National Forest
• Routt National Forest
• San Bernardino National Forest
• White River National Forest
Hiking is important to both my physical and mental health and has played an important role in my volunteer work to help veterans reintegrate following their service and find community. Taking them on hikes has been a powerful way to bolster their health and wellness.
The 2001 Rule protects roughly 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas by generally prohibiting road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting, with limited exceptions. Rescinding it removes that protection nationwide. The notice states that the rescission does not itself mandate timber cutting or road building. But it removes the rule that currently prevents them, and the agency should be candid that this makes road construction and logging in these areas possible where they are now generally prohibited.
For hikers, the value of these areas is that they are undeveloped. A trail through a roadless area offers quiet, solitude, and a sense of remoteness that cannot be rebuilt once a road is cut through. Opening the door to new roads and logging puts those experiences at risk, and the loss would be permanent in a way that is very hard to undo.
The Department's stated reasons for the proposal are to reduce regulatory burden and to return decisions to local Forest Service officials. I ask the agency to address the following in the final rule and EIS:
How will recreation be weighed? If decisions move to the local level, what required standard will ensure that the value of undeveloped backcountry for hiking and other dispersed recreation is considered, rather than left to discretion project by project?
What is the burden being relieved? Please identify the specific, documented costs of the 2001 Rule, and show that they outweigh the benefits of keeping a consistent nationwide protection.
Why rescind rather than amend? If there are specific problems with the rule, why does the Department propose eliminating it entirely instead of a narrower fix?
How will the public be involved? Under the proposal, how would hikers and other recreation users learn of and comment on future decisions affecting individual roadless areas?
I also ask that the Department give the public adequate time to review a proposal of this size. The rescission was issued alongside a draft environmental impact statement and a cost-benefit analysis, with an original 30-day comment period.
I urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place.
Sincerely,
Laura W.
Fort Collins, CO