My trails are at St. Mary's Lake, the Happy Jack area, and Turtle Rock. Lake Marie is where I paddle. The birds, fish, deer, elk, and lynx I watch out there are part of why I go. They're quiet areas which allow me to connect with nature and gain new perspectives. This proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule threatens everything that makes those places worth protecting, and I oppose it.
The agency estimates, in the Economic Benefits from Recreation in Roadless Area Forests section, that "Assuming an upper limit of a 1 percent annual loss of economic benefit within the likely operable and likely operable but complex areas translates into potential annual losses for trail and dispersed area recreation of $4.8 million and $1.3 million for wildlife-related recreation, nationally." That figure is measured against roadless recreation benefits of upwards of $1.5 billion, and the same section acknowledges that the magnitude of losses is unknown. I hike, paddle, photograph the trees and mountains, and watch wildlife in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Roads and changed recreation settings do not disappear after one year; they accumulate and persist for decades. The agency must estimate cumulative recreation losses over 20 years as roads and settings change, compare those figures against projected timber revenue, and explain that analysis clearly.
The forest health rationale in the notice also does not hold together. The agency states in its Rationale for the Proposed Rule that "The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service’s ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns." Yet the document also cites research finding the rule did not meaningfully constrain fuel treatments as a share of forested land, and it notes that insect and disease risk in western roadless areas is similar to or lower than on managed forest land. The agency should reconcile these findings before using forest health as a justification for rescission.
I live about an hour from the Medicine Bow area and 20 minutes from Happy Jack. Both are already busy with locals and visitors. Building more roads will not help people engage better with the land. It will put more pressure on areas that are already stretched. The agency should explain how expanded infrastructure improves the visitor experience rather than degrades it for those who already use these places.
The timber math also matters here. The document states that "approximately 11-16 percent is old-growth forest, 54-63 percent is mature forest, and 26-31 percent is young forest" in the operable areas most likely to be logged under the proposed action, as shown in the Implications for Forest Vegetation, Health, and Carbon section. Old and mature stands make up the large majority of what would be opened. The document identifies no old-growth-specific safeguards beyond general land management plan compliance. The agency must separately analyze and disclose what protections, if any, would apply before harvest in these largely old and mature stands is authorized.
The Laramie aquifer and the rivers it feeds downstream depend on the integrity of these forests. Water is already a precious resource and needs to be left alone for our future. I am also deeply skeptical of the cost side of this decision. The current infrastructure in our national forests already needs repair, and DOGE cuts have forced needed maintenance and improvement projects to be postponed indefinitely. We should repair what we have before expanding roads further. The current cost estimates alone should be reason enough to pause. Nature has power when it is left alone, and species that cannot advocate for themselves depend on decisions like this one being made carefully.