Tomorrow (Nov. 15th) is the deadline to comment on the Bush Administration's awful new "roadless rule." The Clinton administration put the original Roadless Rule in effect back in 2001. This rule blocked logging and road-building on 58.5 million acres of National Forest lacking roads (to see where, check out the maps
here). These are some of the best remaining unprotected wildlands.
Now, the Bush administration is attempting to implement their own "roadless rule." No surprise, this one does little to protect roadless areas. The Forest Service is accepting comments on the new proposed rule untill tomorrow (the 15th). You can email your comments to statepetitionroadless@fs.fed.us, or you can use the form at this site.
The Bush administration took advantage of a lawsuit to abandon Clinton's plan and implement their own "roadless rule." Under the new rule logging, mining, and road-building would still be allowed in roadless areas. State governors would be able to petition the Forest Service to protect these areas, but the states would have to pay the expense of doing the studies and writing the management plans. Certainly, many governors wouldn't be interested in having roadless areas protected, and governors that were interested may be dissuaded by the expense of preparing the required petition.
If you're looking for talking points to use in your email, or just a good reason to support roadless-area protection, here is the text of my letter:
I want to express my strong opposition to the Bush administration's proposal to allow road building and commercial logging within inventoried roadless areas. The original Roadless Area Conservation Rule provided much stronger protection for roadless areas. Please do not replace that high level of a protection with a system that puts protection of roadless areas at the whim of state governors, many of which will certainly not elect to protect roadless areas.
Reasons for protecting roadless areas are numerous. They provide high-quality habitat for fish and wildlife and unsurpassed recreation opportunities for hikers, anglers, and hunters. Roadless areas provide important habitat for many endangered species. Building roads often comes at a high price, both financially and in terms of increased erosion and disturbance caused by roads. Many invasive weeds are spread along roadsides.
The new proposal, by giving veto authority to state governors, is an unacceptable abrogation of federal mangement over federal lands. National forests should be managed for the benefit of the public at large. During the comment period, over 2.5 million Americans commented on the Roadless Rule, and over 90% of comments supported the rule. Giving power to implement the rule to state governors is not acceptable and lacks any precedent in the history of federal management of federal lands.
Thus, I strongly urge the Forest Service to reject the proposed weakening of the original Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to give roadless areas their full support.
Also, the Wilderness Society has a list of 10 reasons to protect roadless areas:
- Wildfire risk. Building new roads in undeveloped forests ultimately increases the risk of wildfire in those forests.
- Irreparable damage to our national forests. In a recent letter, Jane Goodall, E.O. Wilson, and 125 other leading scientists wrote that "a strong roadless conservation rule is one of the cornerstones to sustainable public lands management, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem health of the national forests."
- Taxpayers will have to foot an enormous bill. More than 100 economists favor protection of roadless forests. In a recent letter, they said designation of roadless areas is "economically sound policy that saves taxpayers millions of dollars in road building and timber sale subsidies." Besides, the Forest Service can't even maintain all 430,000 miles of roads that already exist in our national forests. Why build new roads, when the current maintenance backlog currently exceeds $10 billion and continues to grow.
- Many state governors oppose the plan. Nine of the governors who would actually be stuck with overseeing roadless forests in their states have come out in opposition to the plan.
- Businesses will lose. Several major companies such as Nike and International Paper oppose the proposal. And one hundred seventeen businesses in Montana alone -- companies catering mostly to hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts -- recently signed a letter voicing support for roadless protection, noting that those areas are important to the economy, clean water, wildlife habitat and quality of life.
- Media opinion. Seventy papers in more than 30 states have editorialized that the Bush administration's plans to overturn roadless protection are misguided.
- Public opinion. Millions of Americans - more than 1.5 million since July 14 -- have expressed their support for upholding roadless protection. In fact, over the last few years, more than four million people have said that they don't want new roads built in their national forests.
- Roadless areas provide critical wildlife habitat. Some 1,500 species of fish and wildlife, including many threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant and animal species, depend on the wild habitat found in unroaded forests.
- Roadless forests safeguard clean water. Streams that original in roadless forests are the source of drinking water for millions of Americans.
- These pristine forests are part of our heritage. They are the places where millions of Americans go to hike, camp, fish, and enjoy time with their families and friends. It's vital that we protect them, so they will be around for future generations to enjoy!