“building roads into roadless areas is likely to result in more fires, not less”
“Access roads are often the conduit for fires caused by humans”
“unlikely that the US Forest Service will have the funds and personnel available to maintain new roads”
What it names
Roadless areas
Hardesty Mountain
The comment
I am writing regarding the current administration proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule that restricts road construction, reconstruction and timber harvest on almost 45 million roadless acres on National Forest Service land across the country.
My name is Gail Gredler. I moved to Oregon 52 years ago specifically for its beautiful forests, rivers, mountains and coastline. I have visited many of the almost 2 million acres of roadless land in Oregon that is currently protected from development by the rule in question. I have taken an active role in trying to preserve a number of these roadless areas through the years. The Hardesty Mountain Roadless Area is particularly near and dear to me.
I have reviewed the three alternatives presented in the proposed recission of the rule, and the only one that is acceptable to me is Alternative 1, fully retaining the roadless rule for almost 45 million acres. These are our last wild lands that have not been developed. They are an irreplaceable resource. We owe it to future generations to set these areas aside for them.
These lands belong to all Americans, and I believe that retaining them in their current state will provide far more benefits to the American public than developing them for resource extraction. Some of these benefits include:
*Protecting watersheds – Many of these acres are on steep and fragile terrain that is not appropriate for roadbuilding and logging. In the Pacific Northwest, there has been a concerted effort to preserve and restore salmon habitat. That requires that water remains free of the detritus that roadbuilding and logging send into streams and rivers. Development activities also degrade drinking water quality in forested watersheds.
*Providing intact wildlife habitat – Wildlife needs adequate food, water and space to live and reproduce. Roadless lands provide all of these in abundance compared to areas that have been impacted by human activities. Species that are threatened or endangered rely on large tracts of undeveloped land to survive. In western Oregon, salmon, steelhead, marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, Pacific marten, red tree vole, and more make their homes in roadless areas.
*Providing abundant recreational opportunities – The number of people seeking to get out into nature and away from development has ballooned in recent years. Whether hiking, skiing, biking, canoeing, kayaking or just enjoying the peace and quiet of wild areas, people use our remaining roadless areas to recharge from their busy lives. The roadless areas that remain are invaluable in this regard. In addition, businesses that offer equipment and recreational opportunities thrive as a result.
I also want to comment on one of the rationales for rescinding the roadless area rule. The idea that doing so would result in improved forest health is misleading. Recent research concludes that building roads into roadless areas is likely to result in more fires, not less. Access roads are often the conduit for fires caused by humans.
In addition, it is unlikely that the US Forest Service will have the funds and personnel available to maintain new roads, as there is already a tremendous backlog of maintenance on current roads.
I feel strongly that rescinding the Roadless Area Rule is a bad idea, amounts to an assault on our public lands and is an unnecessary land grab. Please choose Alternative 1 and keep the roadless areas roadless in perpetuity.