I live in Belfair, Wa and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, camping, fishing, trail volunteering, camping, wildlife watching, and living near a National Forest community. Natural unspoiled ecosystems like deep forests are key to the survival of all creatures and peoples, they are tied to the health of our air and water and can never be replaced.
Mount Zion is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Mount Zion Inventoried Roadless Area in Olympic National Forest. All of these are sacred natural spaces they are bastions for the health of our species, a legacy we leave to our children and their children.
I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. We cannot maintain the roads we have and it will ruin these sacred places.
I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. They provide large connected habitats that are increasingly difficult to find.
I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Maintaining untouched wilderness is key for healthy unpolluted natural water sources.
Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. These lands cannot be replaced, our unconscious souls are tied to these places.
I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. Why is the existing rule not enough?
I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. The administrative priorities are backwards and greed will kill our species and every other species if this goes unchecked.
The Roadless Rule is essential for wildlife corridors. It protects future generation's access to pristine nature. It protects 44.7 acres of forest roads.
What you are proposing will create gateways for extractive industries.
I strongly oppose removing the Roadless Rule and ask for the Forest Service to adopt a no action alternative" to keep the Rule intact.
Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads.
Roadless areas are carbon vaults.
Many of these areas are the foundation of pristine watersheds that cities rely on.
Road maintenance is significantly more costly than no roads!
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA ensure that roadless values are protected through individual forest plans and project-level decisions if the national rule is removed?
It’s written on your own USDA website… “The proposed rescission reflects the administration’s commitment to return authority to local line officers and ensure they have the tools needed to restore forest health and productivity. The rescission aligns with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens, Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, and Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential.” Telling us your plans to sell our public lands to private timber companies and mining companies.
For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely, Laura. A mother, teacher, and musician