I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.
I write this comment as an Oregonian. My home state has 211 roadless areas encompassing 1.9 million acres. I regularly recreate in and near roadless areas on the Deschutes National Forest. My spouse and I paddle our kayaks on lakes that are bounded by or sit within roadless areas, including Elk Lake, Hosmer Lake, Sparks Lake, and Little Lava Lake. We also enjoy visiting roadless areas across the state. Wildflower hikes near Iron Mountain on the Willamette National Forest and visits to Drift Creek roadless area on the Siuslaw National Forest are cherished experiences. Rescinding the Roadless Rule may well destroy the unparalleled plant diversity of Iron Mountain and Cone Peak. It would certainly affect the bird watching on the Cascade Lakes. In addition to affecting my personal enjoyment of my local forest, this would decimate the tourism economy in Central Oregon.
As many Oregonians will tell anyone who will listen, we greatly value our quiet outdoor experiences. Many of us, myself included, have a need to recreate without having to listen to noisy vehicles or the sort of loud and inconsiderate people who only go where they can drive. People need places they can go, under their own power, that are quiet and remote—areas that promote solitary enjoyment of nature.
I’m very concerned that the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule has been made without due consideration of the impact of climate change as well as the repercussions on the climate. So much of Oregon has burned in the last 10 years, in part because of changes in the climate, that more people (i.e. Oregonians who need their solitude in untrammeled natural surroundings) are recreating in a decreased area. Opening up roadless areas would further degrade the remaining back-country areas by making them vulnerable to potential development. In addition, destruction of old-growth temperate rainforests and sub-alpine forests would release massive amounts of currently sequestered carbon, thus accelerating global temperature rises and increasing drought. This in turn would lead to more intense wildfires. The result is a destructive cycle that worsens the climate catastrophe worldwide, with negative impacts on recreation and natural splendor, degradation of water quality for humans and habitat for many protected species. This also means that communities like mine in Central Oregon will be increasingly threatened with total destruction by wildfire. Not everyone living on or near the urban/wildland divide can afford to fire-harden their residences. In fact, many can only afford to rent, and landlords are not investing in hardening rental properties against wildfires. That leaves belongings at risk when evacuations happen. The average American cannot pay for private fire protection services in the case of threat by wildfire. The increasing frequency of evacuations in these communities greatly impacts work availability and ranchers’ ability to care for livestock. Evacuations are becoming much more frequent, and they use up vast amounts of financial resources and time that working Americans do not have to spare.
Proponents of rescinding the Roadless Rule have argued that they are motivated to improve wildfire management. They argue that roadless areas hinder firefighting efforts. This argument is specious and disingenuous. Roadless areas are much less likely to start burning in the first place. Analysis shows that areas with roads have increased instances of fire starts compared to roadless areas. The vast majority of fires are human-caused. Furthermore, if they were serious about limiting wildfires, they would realize that the increased timber harvests that would undoubtedly follow the opening of roadless areas will release currently sequestered carbon, which in turn would worsen climate change and promote more frequent and more intense fires.
My drinking water comes from a watershed in an inventoried Roadless Area. Opening the area to roads would threaten the quality and safety of my drinking water.
Please do what is right for Americans and do not fully or partially rescind the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS.
I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.