Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001
I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas:
- Siuslaw National Forest (52,000 acres), Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon
- Deschutes National Forest (136,000 acres), Deschutes National Forest, Oregon
- Hardesty Mountain (2,597 acres), Umpqua NF, Oregon
As a resident and taxpayer in Oregon I benefit from the ecosystem support of roadless areas. The flora and fauna that exist across my own property does so because these areas are unharmed and interacting with the ecosystem as a whole. Opening more of these spaces to roads, logging, and other exploitation is against national interest to the benefit of corporations. Personally, I take several vacations a year which involve hiking, camping, fishing (including salmon fishing) and other outdoor activities along the Oregon coast and mountainous regions of Oregon. My personal enjoyment of the vistas and recreation areas would be vastly diminished if roads and logging were allowed in currently protected areas, but that feels like a small complaint next to the horror I feel at the idea of damaging old growth rainforests and key watersheds for monetary gain. Shame on all of you.
I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow.
I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above.
Sincerely,
Amber Willett
Eugene, Oregon