Hello,
I am submitting public comment in disapproval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Public opinion from Pew research polling indicates over 70% of US voters oppose repealing the roadless rule. This rule was passed in broad support in 2001 and has not been contentious piece of regulation.
The roadless rule provides imminence environmental protections that do not just serve recreationists who hunt and hike into these areas but preserves the environmental resources that then stem out beyond roadless areas. They protect sources of clean water, habitat for animals and forests. Some of these areas are small but impactful like the Dark Divide of Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington whose watersheds support salmon runs that help bolster the broader Columbia River watershed salmon runs and has some of the healthier forests in the region. Other roadless areas such as the Tongass in Alaska are large and keep a healthy and large forest that acts as a large carbon sink to buffer the increasingly challenging climate conditions.
While the environmental protections are of the top priority for me, the economics of rescinding the roadless rule does not make much sense either. The National Forest Service does not have the budget to properly maintain the forest roads and trails that exist already. This is large reason why the roadless rule was enacted to begin with as many of the roads were too burdensome to maintain. It does not make sense to rescind the rules when there is not sufficient governmental support to build and maintain roads. Logging and mining operations were also already long on the decline prior to the roadless rule’s enactment. Industry towns that prosper today do so for having built a healthy tourism and recreational industry and diversified their economy with other businesses while still operating scaled back and more sustainable logging operations.
The protected watersheds that bolster salmon runs along the west coast can only be damaged by the rescinding the roadless rule which again notes another negative economical impact. In the Klamath watershed, after years of debate, we as a community in Oregon and California, determined the impact of dams along the Klamath River cost us more benefits than we received from the energy of the hydroelectric dams. The dams were recently removed, and the speed of the fish restoration has been nothing less than historic. To then begin degrading this watershed by building new roads and logging mountainsides all actions that lead to significant erosion and sediment loading of the creeks and rivers would be a tragedy to the recent work and progress within the Klamath National Forest that has been hailed as a huge victory.
I implore the USDA to drop the proposal to rescind the 2001 roadless rule. The proposal will have many negative impacts to both the environment and the economy at large. The few economic benefits of increased logging will only benefit a few of the most wealthy and not the communities at whole.
Sincerely,
Harrison Holzgang
Concerned Citizen and Industrial Environmental Manager