“require more maintainance and more governmental investment overall”
“costly to maintain”
“roads that are in dire need of maintainance already”
The comment
The Roadless Rule cannot be repealed. Incredibly environmentally important resources, including old growth forests and sensitive ecosystems, would be destroyed in the process of industrial development. Many threatened species cannot survive with the intrusion of roads, creating a hazard for many small and large mammals and causing their habitat to fragment. As well, the presence of roads tampers with water, and sources of clean water are becoming increasingly difficult to find and to use as a drinkable water supply. Among many other issues, the final one I'll mention is that there are plenty of roads in the US that are on terrain that is ill-suited for construction- such as forests and swamps. This means these roads require more maintainance and more governmental investment overall. The roads that would be constructed if the roadless rule were removed fall under this description. They would be costly to maintain, especially when there are many roads that are in dire need of maintainance already. I make this comment on behalf of my organization, Students for a Democratic Society, which has opted to take a firm stance against the removal of the Roadless rule.