The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is a nonsensical maneuver by the USDA purely to pander to extractive interests (timber, mineral, oil, etc.). I argue against rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule for two reasons: this is exemplary of the USDA's inability to understand delayed gratification and an existing inability to manage lands that are already not covered by the roadless rule, thereby stretching an already strained department even farther beyond its limits.
The proposal purports to be disconnected from the list of executive orders associated with timber production (EX 14192, 14225, 14154, and 14153, see, Purpose and Need for Action). However, the average educated reader easily understands that the purpose of "reduc[ing] regulatory burden and return[ing] decisionmaking [sic]...to the land management planning process at the individual national forest level" (Summary) is to make it easier for extractive industries to access the lands that form the backbone of our national treasure, the National Forests. The National Forests are remarkable in the width, breadth, access, and availability as a multi-use space. Already timber interests have regular access to the forests, and those of us used to living in small towns across the mountains of the American West have plenty of experience in running into a fully loaded logging truck on a narrow road or encountering the unpleasant results of timber harvesting in our backyards. From the perspective of a small town American, more of this is not necessary. Or, as they say: Not In My Backyard. Logging trucks are loud, they destroy existing roads, they endanger other users simply by being too big and too much in a hurry. If protection is not granted at the federal level, how can the Forest Service--dramatically understaffed--in my parents' small, rural town in the Pacific Northwest, assess the environmental cost of road-building to support economically and politically powerful timber interests? How can an effective land management plan that supports all interests successfully be constructed? David beats Goliath, but only because David has a sling. If the sling of the Roadless Rule is gutted, how can small towns and local businesses survive against mass industry that trucks all the trees out of town to be processed elsewhere? How is that representing the local American?
Second, the proposal to rescind suggests that rescinding the Roadless Rule will somehow improve our wildfire response. This is, of course, absolute nonsense. Simply put: the current resources available to fight fire cannot manage fire in areas that already have roads, much less to protect areas far beyond human habitation. As an example: some years ago, the Forest Service performed hazardous fuel mitigation in the Carson National Forest near Pot Creek, NM where my extended family lives. Substantial thinning took place, but there was no subsequent removal or remediation of the thinned material. Instead, the cut material was left in piles scattered throughout the area to get drier and more hazardous in the fire season. In the same area, the USFS lost control of a controlled burn, which threatened lives and houses. It seems clear to me that the USFS is struggling to manage areas with existing roads, and opening roadless areas to road-building is unlikely to improve departmental performance.
The USDA would do better to focus on increased resources (more money, more employees, less bureaucratic nonsense) for the USFS in order to actually protect the lives of Americans and to keep our great national forests healthy so that everyone can use them.