In reference to:
36 CFR Part 294
RIN 0596-AD66
I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
My name is Kelly Skonier. I was born and raised in North Carolina. This is where I still live, work and pay taxes. From a young age, I learned to love our natural forests and waterways, and to ‘leave no trace’ when hiking, camping, or otherwise exploring. I have family all across NC, from the mountains, to the piedmont and the coast, and across our great nation, from New England down to Florida, west to the suburbs of Seattle, and all in between.
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects about 172,000 acres of national forest land in North Carolina, including areas in Pisgah National Forest, Nantahala National Forest, and the Croatan National Forest. The many hiking trails, beautiful waterfalls and scenic swampland that are parts of these lands are not only enjoyed by me, they also draw tourists to visit, bringing outside dollars into some more rural communities. They are also, obviously, natural habitats for many plants, animals and other living things. I believe these lands and those all across the country should remain protected under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I may not have gotten to visit them yet, but I believe they should be protected for when I can and for future generations.
I understand the argument for roads to be able to prevent or fight wildfires. But I do not believe that any good-faith effort was put forth in proposing an acceptable change. As a layperson, without specialized advanced education in these areas, I do know that there are techniques using prescribed burns and logging with draft animals that are less detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole, while also providing some needed safeguards. According to pew.org “the findings from the USDA’s own draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) indicate that repealing the rule is likely to cause economic and environmental harm to undeveloped backcountry forests, wildlife, water resources, and communities, while delivering little or no wildfire risk reduction and potentially increasing federal road maintenance costs.”
I believe that discussions with foresters, watershed specialists, and those who have studied the animals, insects and birds that live on these lands, to be able to preserve the lands as naturally as possible, is imperative before even considering any possibility of change. Moving forward with fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule when your own research points to increased costs and damages without much, if any, risk reduction seems obtuse or worse, spiteful.
I believe fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake.
I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I support the No Action alternative, Alternative 1.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Kelly Skonier