Dear U.S. Forest Service and USDA,
I am strongly against the USDA’s proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would remove people’s opportunity to emotionally and spiritually connect with nature, which many people need to have good mental health, which affects every other aspect of our lives. Aside from the impact on mental health, this action would be unwise because it would affect the cleanliness of our water sources, disrupt wildlife habitats – promoting extinction of various species, and remove recreational opportunities. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and retain full Roadless Rule protections.
I live in Missouri, and I absolutely love spending time in nature, especially the roadless areas of nature far away from industrialization. These moments in nature create an unexplainable sense of calm and awe in me. But it is not just Missouri I care about. I have traveled to many of the other U.S. states too. One of my favorite things about traveling is visiting unique nature landscapes and observing the wildlife that live in earth’s various biomes. Spending time in the roadless areas of the U.S. brings me immense peace and heals me from my preoccupation with my responsibilities. Being in nature reminds me to just be, not do. Productivity is not all life is about; we also must engage in experiences for the sake of our mental and spiritual health, even if there appears to be no “productive benefits.” I believe protecting my mental health is important, and the existence of untouched nature is a crucial aspect.
Nature provides more than just a calming effect. There are many ecological processes happening all the time people do not think about. The exchange of energy between plants, animals, humans, and the atmosphere is complex. Nature is a necessary element of this energy exchange; destroying habitats disrupts this natural exchange of energy and mutual benefit. For human lives to thrive, we must properly steward the land and animals of the earth. Humans are only able to exist because of the natural biological processes set in place to sustain life. Life did not begin with industrialization; it began with humans, animals, and nature. We must carefully monitor how invasive our industrial practices are. The creation of new roads in these current roadless areas would be crossing the line into invasive practices.
25,000 roadless areas would be affected in Missouri if Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, is not chosen. The Mark Twain National Forest is one of closest roadless areas to where I live. I would be deeply upset if this forest, along with any other roadless areas, was destroyed in the name of building new roads and infrastructure. I understand someone might argue that new roads could promote more efficient transportation, but I would argue that the benefits of untouched nature outweigh the potential to allow humans to travel more efficiently. Life is not all about productivity and efficiency. Life is also about joy and awe. Nature allows us to experience these moments of awe, which bring us a specific joy and peace we do not experience in any other context.
I have many family members and friends who would be extremely upset if Roadless Areas were no longer conserved. Anyone who believes these areas should be destroyed neglects to acknowledge the impact nature has on people’s mental and spiritual health. This destruction would also show a lack of understanding or reverence of the life-sustaining ecological processes that exist. Industrial actions are invasive, and should be minimized, with lots of consideration given to decisions before choosing to tear apart the earth.
For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be unwise. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.