My name is Emilie and I oppose rescinding the roadless rule because intact forest ecosystems are so incredibly valuable and a substantial part of my career as well as my mental health - especially in the White Mountain National Forest where my career in wildlife first started alongside my love for hiking the 48 four thousand footers majority of which lie within the forest and are protected by the roadless rule.
In addition to my personal enjoyment of these lands, I am concerned about rescinding this rule for the following reasons: the impact on surrounding wildlife and plants, and the push this will create on logging efforts within the forest boundaries in protected and intact forest ecosystems - which are far and few between.
Roadless areas currently contain habitats for 57% of vulnerable species of wildlife - in the White Mountain National Forest this includes species like Bicknell’s Thrush, Canada Lynx, Northern Long-Eared bat, and many more. Two of those species I personally have studied and have a different understanding and a close personal connection to them and their importance in the ecosystem. Roads and clearcut logging cause habitat fragmentation that acts as a barrier for migration, breaks up important habitat, creates noise that can cause animal distress and lead to population decline, increase the likelihood of motor vehicle accidents, introduce invasive species, and create runoff in aquatic environments.
As far as timber harvests, clear cuts, and logging goes, from an ornithologist perspective as someone who worked for the research branch of the forest service in the White Mountain National Forest, studies show that different types of cut styles and techniques have different impacts on bird species abundance and diversity as well as breeding success rates and migration. Certain species of birds thrive in a maintained forest with single tree selection, group selection, or clear cuts, while other species rely on old growth forest ecosystems. The forest service knows this and actively manages forests accordingly for various species of wildlife, not just for birds, in a way that benefits everyone. Without the roadless rule, it will no longer be managed and organized for the benefit of everyone, it will be far spread and wide for the benefit of a few. This will negatively impact so many wildlife species that use these areas for breeding purposes. Some species in the White Mountain National Forest can only breed there - Bicknell’s Thrush being a prime example. They are so selective, they can only breed in high elevation sub-alpine forest ecosystems that are only found in the higher elevations of the White Mountain National Forest, Green Mountain National Forest, and parts of Maine. This species is already of greater conservation concern even with the extensive efforts to manage their habitat accordingly, we cannot afford to take that away or we may lose this species as a whole.
For these reasons, I support the Alternative 1, "No Action" alternative. Keep these roadless areas protected!
Sincerely,
Emilie