Central Oregon contains nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. For nearly 25 years, these protections have preserved critical wildlife habitat, safeguarded drinking water, supported outdoor recreation, and contributed directly to the quality of life and economic vitality of communities throughout the region.
As a frequent visitor to these public lands, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or otherwise alter the Roadless Rule. Doing so would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service nationwide and would expose some of the country’s most intact forest landscapes to unnecessary and potentially irreversible damage.
I urge the USDA to select the **No Action Alternative** and retain the Roadless Rule in full.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would be both short-sighted and dangerous. In Central Oregon, opening currently roadless areas to expanded logging and road construction is unlikely to produce meaningful long-term economic benefits. The costs, however, would be substantial. New roads would fragment wildlife habitat, degrade scenic landscapes, diminish recreation opportunities, and undermine many of the qualities that make Central Oregon an exceptional place to live, work, and visit.
Expanded road networks also create serious wildfire risks. Research has shown that wildfires are significantly more likely to ignite near roads, where increased human access creates additional opportunities for accidental and intentional ignitions. At a time when Central Oregon is already confronting increasingly severe wildfire seasons, expanding roads into currently protected areas would introduce additional and unnecessary risk.
The consequences for drinking water are equally concerning. The Bend Municipal Watershed originates in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek within the Deschutes National Forest. Road construction, logging, erosion, and sedimentation in sensitive watersheds can degrade water quality and aquatic habitat. Weakening Roadless Rule protections would therefore threaten not only fish and wildlife, but also the drinking water supply relied upon by more than 100,000 people in Bend. Similar risks would extend to communities and watersheds across the country.
Roadless forests are also essential to the long-term resilience of our public lands. Roads facilitate the spread of invasive species, fragment wildlife corridors, increase erosion, alter hydrology, and reduce the ability of forests and watersheds to withstand changing wildfire conditions and other environmental pressures.
These lands are among the most ecologically valuable and least fragmented areas remaining in the national forest system. Once roads are constructed and these landscapes are disturbed, many of their defining qualities cannot easily be restored.
I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort to repeal or weaken the Roadless Rule. Instead, the agency should maintain and strengthen protections for America’s remaining roadless forests and recognize the extraordinary public benefits they provide: clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, recreation, scenic landscapes, wildfire resilience, and healthy forests for future generations.
Codey Christensen
Bend, OR