I'm writing to comment in opposition to the USDA's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I'm based in Juneau, Alaska, and regularly recreate within roadless areas here in the Tongass National Forest. In Alaska,, I most often recreate in the following roadless areas: Taku-Snettisham, Juneau-Skagway Icefield, Juneau Urban, and Douglas Island.
Additionally, I have recreated on roadless areas in several states including but not limited to: Allegheny National Forest, PA, Monoghaela National Forest in West Virginia, White Mountian National Forest in New Hampshire, Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, Ocala National Forest in Florida, Chattahooche National Forest in South Carolina, Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina, Olympic National Forst and Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington.
When recreating, I often seek out roadless areas and feel that protections for these areas are critical to ensuring future generations can enjoy these lands as I have.
I believe the rule is well written, and the language allows for a variety of exemptions (timber harvest, wildfire fighting, roadbuilding, resource access, thinning, etc.). Most importantly, local Forest Service officials already have the authority to review and approve these exemptions.
Roadless areas provide critical habitat for wildlife and serve as an important natural protection, helping ensure communities across the country have clean drinking water. Here in Alaska, I’m most concerned with the potential impacts that new subsidized road development for the timber industry would have on salmon habitat.
Local economic engines have been designed around roadless areas. Just this summer, I paid a rafting company to raft through a roadless area, and a climbing guide to access a local crag via roadless-area trails. Here in Alaska, over 2 million cruise ship passengers will sail through the inside passage, marveling at our intact forest. Repealing the rule could put this billion-dollar industry at risk.
The rule was originally designed to save taxpayers' money and allow the USFS to prioritize the maintenance backlog. Rolling back the rule could result in spending US Taxpayer dollars on road subsidies and a return to a time when the US government subsidized the Timber Industry.
I find the "Purpose and Need for Action" for FS-2025-0001-223869 frivolous. I'd like to encourage the USDA to move away from a top-down, DC-driven approach. Roadless Rule protections have been in place for more than two decades; they are working, and the rule is serving the American public well.
Again, I oppose the USDA's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I'll continue to raise my voice so my nieces and nephews have the same opportunities I've had to bike, hike, ski, raft in roadless areas.
Thanks for your time and consideratio