I am opposed to repeal of the roadless rule because I frequently recreate in National Forests that will be effected and recreation with the current amount of roads is completely sufficient to fulfill more than a lifetime of recreation in these places.
It is worth noting that I often recreate in my overlanding vehicle, which is a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 with an AT Overland Atlas camping topper that is specifically designed for overloading, which is exploring backcountry roads (primarily in national forests) and camping. I often string together trips of 2-5 days overloading in various national forests. (I will provide my experience doing so at the end of this comment.) Due to the plethora of road options already available in National Forestland, which is enough to satisfy a lifetime of use, the addition or more roads is not a compelling rationale for this proposal.
Specifically, these are the reasons I am opposed to repeal of the roadless rule.
1. Impact on nearby National Parks:
National Forests play a critical role in the National Park System by often surrounding National Parks and thus serving as a buffer between pristine parkland and wilderness areas and human activity. This is the case for nearly all the major parks in the park system, including the Crown Jewels of the National Parks Service, which will be directly impacted by the recession of the roadless rule—Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, Mount Ranier, Yosemite, North Cascades, Olympic, Everglades, Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Redwood, Crater Lake, Shenandoah, Wrangell St. Elias, and Great Smokey Mountains. It is additionally the case for lesser known, but still important, national parks such as Theodore Roosevelt, Badlands, Guadalupe Mountains, Lassen, Pinnacles, Voyaguers, Mesa Verde, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, New River Gorge, as well as other national park units such as Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
The impact on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem looks particularly acute. The GYE, which includes Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and several impacted National Forests — Custer-Gallatin NF, Shoshone NF, Bridger-Teton NF, Caribou-Targhee NF. Like the other National Parks mentioned above, Yellowstone greatly benefits by being completely surrounded by National Forest land. In fact, also like many of these other National Parks, it is impossible to enter Yellowstone without passing through a National Forest.
Simply put — increasing roads and industrial motor vehicle traffic in national forestland will adversely impact the ability of people to get into the parks and will have an adverse effect on nearby wildlife and wilderness areas.
2. Impact on last remaining intact ecosystems
Personally, when I camp and backpack, I do it in an intact ecosystem. Whether in/around Yellowstone, Tongass NF, Chugach NF, Superior NF / Boundary Waters, or other roadless wilderness areas, these areas are few and far between and provide solitude that is simply unavailable in forestland that permit roads. The personal benefits to me, my family, and my friends are significant. These areas provide time and space and silence for personal reflection and personal growth.
Adding additional roads into roadless areas threatens this recreation. It is also worth noting that these areas are some of the last areas WITHOUT ROADS in the world, so the only areas that permit space for reflection away from modern society. These areas need to be preserved as is for this unique and limited experience.
The estimated loss of $6.1M annually is a ridiculous underestimate that completely lacks support. The real total is far greater.
3. No definition of the “regulatory burden” that will allegedly be relieved.
There is no real definition of what the exact “regulatory burden” that USFS claims is present. If this is just another way of stating that this current government just doesn’t like the rule, then that is not a persuasive reason to repeal it.
Moreover, the rationale is full of vague, undefined justifications that do not hold up to scrutiny:
- “Constrains responsible officials from exercising the timely, place-based discretion…”
- “Evolving national priorities and changed conditions…”
- “Removed important management tools for key areas…”
- “Unique ecological, economic, and social needs of their communities…”
These are vague, boilerplate terminologies for which no concrete examples are given in the rationale. Indeed, there are no examples given of any local forest service officials expressing desire for more “flexibility to address conservation and resource issues” by repealing the roadless rule. Absent any examples, the rationale for this repeal cannot stand.
(To be continued - 1 of 2)