To the U.S. Forest Service / USDA:
I am writing to strongly oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As someone who spends every summer backpacking the Pacific Crest Trail, I have seen firsthand what this rule protects, and I urge you to keep it in place.
I hike the Pacific Crest Trail in Oregon and Washington each year, including sections in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness, Mount Hood Wilderness, and Mount Hood National Forest. Closer to my Idaho home, I explore the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and the Eagle Cap Wilderness in eastern Oregon. Exploring the mountains of the pacific northwest is what I love the very most. What draws me back is the quiet, the wildlife, and the scenery. These places hold years of family memories, and as my children leave home, I plan to thru-hike the PCT. That dream depends on the trail staying wild.
The stakes extend well beyond one hiker's plans:
- The PCT itself. There are 63 roadless areas along 288 miles of the PCT across California, Oregon, and Washington, roughly 11% of the trail. Opening these lands to roads and logging would change the experience of the trail for everyone who walks it.
- Clean water. Roadless areas provide drinking water to 60 million Americans. Roads and logging increase erosion and sediment, which threatens that supply.
Ecological health and climate. These undeveloped lands are critical to our nation's ecological health and store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests.
- Wildlife. Roadless areas are crucial habitat for more than 1,600 threatened species.
- Recreation access. Millions of people hike, hunt, fish, and camp in these areas every year, at free or very low cost. For many families, including mine, these are the most accessible great places to spend time outdoors.
- Economic value. The outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. Protecting roadless areas protects the larger economic engine.
- Fiscal responsibility. The Forest Service already has 370,000 miles of forest roads and a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Building more roads into remote country is not sound stewardship of taxpayer money.
- Wildfire. Studies show wildfire ignitions are four times more likely near roads than in roadless areas. Adding roads may increase the risk it is meant to address.
The Roadless Rule has protected these landscapes for decades with broad public support. Repealing it would trade lasting public benefits (clean water, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, recreation, and quiet) for short-term gain and added maintenance costs.
I respectfully urge you to retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.
Thank you for considering my comment.
Yours in pretty-pretty please,
Lachelle Hansen
Boise, Idaho