I am opposed to the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For 25 years it has served well the country's forests, and the rivers and streams that originate and flow through those areas. In the central Shenandoah Valley where I live, we depend on the waters that flow from the George Washington National Forest (GWNF) for our community water supplies as well as to nourish our agricultural production (largest agricultural counties in Virginia). Protecting the forests and watersheds from erosion and sediment runoff that roads create is central to this productive area.
The forests and waterways in the area also are central to the variety of outdoor recreational activities that locals and visitors enjoy - hunting, fishing, birdwatching, hiking, and canoeing. Wildlife and fish cannot thrive in habitats cut up by roads that bring in invasive species and contribute to wildfires (more wildfires and invasive species problem areas are adjacent to roads). These outdoors activities also contribute significantly to the local economy. If the forests are further damaged by additional road construction through them, wildlife habitats are threatened, and hunting and fishing are impaired.
At this time of limited US Forest Service funding, as evidenced by staffing shortages across the service nationwide, eliminating the Roadless Area Conservation Rule also does not make sense fiscally. Road construction in mountainous areas is expensive and maintenance of those roads also is difficult and expensive. The Forest Service is unable to adequately maintain the roads that currently exist in the national forest system.
I read the stated reasons for this proposed change and they include statements that indicate the changes will not substantially impact in a negative way these protected areas and their management will be put under a decentralized system of management plans. However, I take no assurance in those statements, as we have long advocated for the GWNF that borders us to be further protected from road development and commercial timber harvesting - not for the protections to be reduced. We opposed pipelines through the area, knowing how they would cause erosion and clog the rivers and streams with sediment - and adversely affect our water supplies.
I love hiking in the GWNF. I love the wildlife and deep forest vegetation. I am opposed to ending the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule - it has proven to be a great success. Why rescind it?