Public Comments Processing
Attn: Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service Roadless Rule Review
RE: Strong Support for Alternative 1 (No Action) Regarding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong support for Alternative 1 (the "No Action" alternative) and my firm opposition to any rescission or weakening of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. And in keeping with my support for the Roadless Rule I totally oppose Alternatives 2 and 3.
As a resident living in the Bridger-Teton National Forest area, my daily life, recreation, and local economy are completely intertwined with the health of these public lands. I am an avid hunter, hiker, fisherman, and skier. Over the years, I have seen firsthand how the intact backcountry of the Bridger-Teton provides irreplaceable world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation and supports communities from here in the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean.
Maintaining the No Action alternative is vital for the following reasons:
1. Wildlife Habitat and Hunting Access: The Bridger-Teton National Forest is home to critical migration corridors and winter range for iconic big game species like elk, moose, mule deer, and bighorn sheep. Roadless areas provide the security habitat these animals need to thrive under heavy hunting pressure. Fragmenting these lands with new roads would disrupt migration routes, degrade habitat quality, and permanently harm the quality of public-land hunting.
2. Watershed Protection and Fishing: The pristine, cold-water streams in our inventoried roadless areas serve as essential spawning grounds for native cutthroat trout. Keeping these watersheds road-free prevents erosion, sedimentation, and thermal pollution. This protects both the exceptional fishing opportunities we enjoy and the clean drinking water relied upon by downstream communities. And the benefits extend far beyond my neighbors and I having clean drinking water. The wild forests of western Wyoming and Idaho are the sinks that provide irrigation water to the vast farmlands surrounding the Snake River. If we break those forests, we break the hydrologic cycle: goodbye cheap break and potatoes. I don't want to pay $10 for McDonalds French Fries.
3. Wildfire Risk and Forest Management: Building new roads into backcountry areas significantly increases the risk of human-caused wildfires, as the vast majority of human-ignited fires occur near road corridors. Furthermore, the Forest Service already faces a massive multi-billion-dollar road maintenance backlog. It is fiscally irresponsible to build new roads when we cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure we already have.
The 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully protected the wildest portions of the Bridger-Teton National Forest for a quarter of a century. Choosing Alternative 1 (No Action) is the only path forward that respects the values of local residents, safeguards our outdoor recreation economy, and ensures future generations can hunt, hike, fish, and ski in a healthy, intact forest.
Thank you for your time and for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Aleck Ross-Frye