1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
Own letter
The comment
I am writing to oppose the recommendation to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have read Secretary Rollins’ comments about how he and other land managers believe that the rule has hindered efforts to create better access to public lands for the purposes of forest management. I do agree that forest management practices are in need of revision. I also agree that there is great concern for the potential of some of these lands being severely damaged by wildfires. However, I do not believe that the rescission of the roadless rule is the answer nor do I believe that it is the appropriate response.
It has been reported that, out of all the significant wildfires in the contiguous United States, only 1% have been associated with roadless areas. A 2017 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) states that “over 84% of the government-recorded wildfires were started by people from 1992 to 2012. Sixty percent of the total land area of the coterminous United States was dominated by human-started wildfires, whereas only 8% of the area was dominated by lightning fires.” Most wildfires are caused as a result of human activity and infrastructure. Human-created causes of wildfires can include, for example: fireworks, escaped camp fires, burning trash, power lines, improperly discarded cigarettes, arson, and sparks from machinery.
While it is true that the existence of a road through a public land could aid fire fighters in their efforts to fight a wildfire by enabling them to transport themselves and their equipment more quickly into remote areas, the very existence of such roads would be a double-edged sword for the lands that they would be intended to protect. Roads would allow people greater ease and access to these properties. Even if the use of such new roads were restricted, could we really expect trespassers to abide by other rules (i.e. if someone were to drive onto a forest service road that they are not supposed to be on, how could we trust them to also not light illegal campfires or fireworks, etc.)?
Another reason to keep the roadless rule is that some of these roadless areas serve as upstream watersheds for communities that are downstream and outside of these protected zones. For example, the city of Bend, Oregon draws its water from streams that pass through roadless areas in the Deschutes National Forest. The creation of more roads and the act of logging these areas could introduce contamination into drinking water sources.
Another issue is monetary. Roads cost money. They cost money to build, and they cost money to maintain. It is reported that the U.S. Forest Service currently has a backlog of several billion dollars for the maintenance of its already existing 380,000 miles of roads. It would make more sense to use funds for roads that have already been built before trying to construct new ones.
I would also like to emphasize the importance of preserving these areas for the benefit of all Americans, including future generations who have not even been yet. The United States is a beautiful and ecologically diverse nation. I have personally had the privilege to hike through many national forests, including areas that are part of roadless areas. While I acknowledge that it was a road that enabled me to travel to the trailheads, there are already ample opportunities for recreational activities in these lands that do not require the construction of more roads. I recently returned from a trip out west which included a hike along Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon. Some of that gorgeous forested land is part of a roadless area and is also part of the aforementioned Bend watershed. I have hiked through other roadless areas such as the trail to Tamawanas Falls in the Mount Hood National Forest, on trails in roadless areas near Lake Quinault in Washington state, along the ocean in Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. These areas are gems of our great country, and they are worth preserving so that future generations of Americans can explore them on foot as well.
Having grown up in Indiana, I appreciate that there is even a roadless section in the Hoosier National Forest. My home state was once mostly forest (numbers change depending on the source, but most claim that Indiana was once 70-80% forest even 200 hundred years ago). Today Indiana forests are but a fraction of what they once were. Let us protect and preserve what remains.
Now that I live in the concrete jungle of Philadelphia I can appreciate even more greatly the need to protect and preserve natural areas of our country. There are few trees on my city block, and not even a blade of grass. I urge you to protect America’s roadless areas by keeping the roadless rule in place so that we can always have these wonderful lands to enjoy!
Respectfully,
Taylor Davila