I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
As I understand it, part of the reason for establishing the rule is that it would be too expensive to construct roads to access timber in these areas. With declining USFS budgets and rising prices, this is likely even more true today. In the past 35 years, I've seen the current road system deteriorate, with what used to be well-graded roads now full of potholes or washboard. We were recently in the Bighorn National Forest on a main corridor road leading to a popular campground that was ten miles of bone jarring washboards. If the roadless rule is rescinded, then I fear that the existing roads will get even worse due to limited road budgets going to new roads versus maintaining the current system.
Another major concern is that ATV damage will extend further into the forests. Some of my best grouse hunting used to be on closed / bermed roads on the Superior Nation Forest back when the primary ATVs in use were Honda three wheelers. As four-wheelers became more popular and increasingly heavy, what used to be an old road covered in clover perfect for hunting on foot turned into mud and ruts from side to side, making it too much of a mess to be able to walk.
Additional truck and ATV access puts streams at risk from sedimentation arising both from stream crossings and from dirt entering streams due to erosion of roads during heavy rains.
For those of us who hunt by foot versus from an ATV, the lands covered by the roadless rule are more accessible than lands designated as wilderness but still provide a remote-feeling experience without disruption from motorized vehicles. These areas also allow wildlife to move around freely without disturbance from motorized vehicles.
These roadless areas provide buffers around important protected lands like national parks and wilderness areas to maintain a natural viewshed and quiet.
Adding more roads that allow trucks and ATVs deeper into the forest risks creates more risk of human-caused wildfires. Access for fighting wildfires is listed as a reason for rescinding but any gain these is likely to be offset by more human-caused fires.
I am not anti-logging. We all use forest products and providing timber and pulp is obviously a central role of the USFS. Allowing access to some timber stands via special permit, with protections in place, could help meet these needs without all the negative consequences of rescinding the rule.
In closing, as a long-time and frequent user of USFS lands, I respectfully ask that this proposal be withdrawn and the roadless rule be left in place.