I oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule. Please select the no-action alternative.
I live on the edge of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. I backpack, fish, camp, hike, hunt, birdwatch, meditate and wander in its roadless areas, alone and with my family, all year. It has become a meaningful part of our lives and we want it preserved for the generations after us.
I read the proposed rule. Its own findings don't support a nationwide repeal. Local management problems call for local fixes.
You say wildland-urban interface overlaps 24 percent of roadless areas. The current rule already allows thinning for wildfire risk and emergency roads. So why repeal protections on the other three-quarters? Why not limit changes to the interface, or fix the exception process you say is too slow?
You describe the new management opportunities as "modest and localized," and you admit more access can mean more human-caused fires. What is the net effect on wildfire risk? The proposal doesn't say.
I spent my career as a professional investor, and these numbers don't work. Best case, by your own estimate, is $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue, and you call that case unlikely. Against that you list $6.1 million a year in recreation losses and a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on roads you already have. Who pays to build and maintain new ones? The 2001 rule existed partly because the agency couldn't maintain its road system. What has changed?
You acknowledge new roads cost quiet, remote recreation. In a time of mental health decline, degrading these forests is a terrible idea. Does the $6.1 million figure count the health value of that quiet? If not, it should.
You lean on forest plans to limit the damage, then note those plans can be amended to allow more roads and logging. What happens then? Which Bridger-Teton roadless acres does the current plan open?
Keep the rule. Fix specific problems with specific solutions. I'd like a response to each numbered point in the Final EIS.
Gregory Mattiko, Jackson, Wyoming