I am writing in order to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have cared deeply for our national forests and public lands since I can remember. My family often recreated in national forests, and I went on my first camping trip in the Chattahoochee National Forest at just 3 months old! Throughout my life I have continued to be involved in our public lands and national forests, whether through recreation, work (I am a hydrologic technician at the Grand Canyon NP!), and even relying on it for drinking water in Flagstaff, Arizona. Our public lands and national forests are deeply engrained in my life and the lives of so many of my friends and neighbors here in Flagstaff.
Because of this and so many other reasons, I strongly oppose the rescinding of the 2001 Roadless Rule. To begin, the Forest Service was established to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. If that is truly the goal, developing roads is in clear and direct opposition to this goal. It has been proven that environmental fragmentation caused by road construction can be even more harmful to habitat than clearcutting. Additionally, roadless areas protect habitat for over 1500 at-risk species, protect old growth forests (which in turn protect and serve us!), and protect/provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans. It is abundantly clear that this proposed decision is being made out of greed, not to uphold the standards with which the Forest Service has been tasked.
Additionally, the claim that these roads will help reduce fire risk is absolutely preposterous. An overwhelming majority of fires are caused by humans, with the majority of those fires starting within a few hundred feet of roads. Additional roads would only increased the number of human caused fires. Additionally, new research is showing that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded ones. The rule already allows exceptions for logging and road building for the purpose of reducing fire risk, so it is wildly misleading to claim fire risk reduction as a reason to rescind the rule when that is already allowed within the rule. The administration does not need to rescind the rule in order to build roads or log simply for fire risk reduction. They want to rescind the rule because the road building and logging would absolutely not be occuring to simply reduce fire risk but to increase logging in general. This would be a blatant misrepresentation of the goals of rescinding the rule and an obvious manipulation of wording to fool the public. It's a disgusting tactic and honestly embarrassing for the administration to be talking and lying in circles. The fiscal year 26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, so it is a joke and a lie for USDA to claim that this rule is genuinely for mitigating fire risk.
Economically, the rescinding of this rule also makes no sense. Text within the rule already states that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system safely and to environmental standards. As budget and personnel cuts continue, how is it now economically feasible to maintain MORE roads? It's not. Also, most forest revenue these days come from recreation, NOT logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, tightening an already tight budget.
The Roadless Rule is one of the most popular rules ever implemented in USDA history. I am at a loss really for why it is even being considered to be rescinded. The rule received the most public comments in HISTORY at the time with 96% of those comments in support of the roadless protections. Updated polling supports the continued claim that this rule is extremely popular - 75% of Americans support it with only 16% in opposition. If the USDA is really the people's department like they claim, then maybe they should listen to the 75% of Americans that are still in support of this rule.
These are just a few environmental, fire, and economic related reasons for why I feel the Roadless Rule should not be rescinded. It seems very obvious that this proposition is in the interest of a particular few, not the wellbeing of the majority or the environment. Before the agency move forward with any decision, I ask that they:
1. Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building and provide the results with full transparency.
2. Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission and provide proof that this is the case (environmental and impact analysis will be helpful!!)
3. Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs and how this will fit into the plan for new road construction.
4. And commit to moving forward with full transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed.
Thank you, Emma