To whom it may concern,
I am writing today to beg you to reconsider the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Greenlighting development in protected wilderness areas will have dire consequences for the flora, fauna, and human communities that depend on them. The inherent, intrinsic value of protecting our wilderness far outweighs any “economic” value that can be extracted from plundering it for its natural resources. Development will come with a steep cost: the fragmentation of habitat that will result will threaten biodiversity and contribute to the worsening climate crisis and general degradation of the planet, ruining the environment for generations to come.
Ecosystems are fragile and complex, and they are already under threat from human activity, pollution and global warming. There are so few untouched wilderness areas left, and the Roadless Rule helps protect them. These areas will serve as vital refuge for endemic species whose very existence would be impossible without the ecosystems they evolved in. Running roads through these areas would damage habitat essential to the species that are most susceptible to a changing environment, leading to devastating losses of biodiversity (Nick M. Haddad et al’s “Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems”). Additionally, the introduction of pollutants from constructing these roads and running vehicles and increased foot-traffic through them will cause great harm as they enter root/soil, bodily, and water systems. The health of forestland and waterways will determine their ability to act as carbon sinks in this era of anthropogenic climate change; old growth forests are some of the best defenses we have against rising greenhouse gas emissions. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will cause irreparable damage to these already fragile ecosystems and introduce new problems that reduce these areas’ carbon capture potential and their ability to support life.
Under the Rationale section of this proposal, it acknowledges maintaining “ecological integrity,” mitigating wildfire risk, and increasing access for forest/insect/disease management purposes, while simultaneously highlighting the need to access timber and mineral resources. These ideals cannot coexist. According to the language used in Donald Trump’s executive orders, especially E.O. 14153, it becomes clear that the true purpose of this proposal is for economic gain - the extraction and exploitation of the Earth’s precious materials. Roads often increase wildfire risk and decrease ecological integrity, as roads lead to traffic that can spawn wildfires from exhaust heat or sparks from metal scraping asphalt, rock, or other metal (Jennifer K Balch et al’s “Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States”). The increase in traffic can also lead to the movement of insects and disease, as the movement of people and cars can act as vectors that transport these. Lastly, the physical act of carving a road into the land can make it unstable, as this creates stress points and removes plants whose root systems were holding the land in place, leading to landslides. This does not sound like ecological integrity to me. Prosperity does not come from deregulation (EO 14192), destruction does.
I can think of nothing more unpatriotic than ruining our country’s wilderness - landscapes that inspire patriotism through songs like “America the Beautiful” (Katharine Lee Bates and Samuel A. Ward) and “This Land Is Your Land” (Woody Guthrie). The language that is used in the executive orders that this proposal references paints a clear desire to access these lands for economic gain - an abuse of power that will undo the years of preservation granted by the Roadless Rule. 25 years ago, people foresaw the importance of protecting millions of acres of forestland, and this rule has been one of the most successful stories of land preservation this country has seen. Regulations like the 2001 Roadless Rule are put in place with good reason, researched and backed by experts. That the advice of experts can be overridden by one man’s word is extremely disappointing. Why does the Forest Service want to bend the knee to one man’s desires? The Roadless Rule was put into place to ensure that these areas could be enjoyed by everyone and continue to provide crucial habitat in a country whose landscape has already been poisoned and marred by the dangerous ideals of capitalistic growth. There are already hundreds of thousands of miles of road running throughout this country’s national parks and forestlands, providing ample connectivity and access to nature for recreation, management purposes, and beyond. To remove federal regulation sets a dangerous precedent, allowing for untold damage to occur in its absence.
This land is for you and me; it is not for sale. Please protect the land, the water, and the people and animals that depend on them. Save the Roadless Rule