1 file from Cascadia Wildlands. Counts as 3,295 — Counted from the files: The enclosed submissions were counted from the files themselves.
Enclosed submissions
The comment
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins,
We, the undersigned 3,318 Americans, strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or
weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would
devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the
clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining
intact forestlands provide.
This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons:
Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily
expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads
that are rarely, if ever, used. The road network throughout national forests is already massive
and should be reduced instead of expanded.
Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a
multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat
and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the
very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological
resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is
not sound policy.
More roads in the backcountry means more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to
ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources
from protecting communities.
The public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was
adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the
history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity
for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the
public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic
and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the
Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule
in place.