“data shows that 90% of wildfires start within 164 feet (50 meters) of a road”
“rescinding the roadless rule will help fight wildfires by creating more access”
“effect that roads can have on... wildfires”
What it names
Roadless areas
Glass Mountain
The comment
I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the roadless area conservation rule. I am a 24 year old resident of mono county who has lived here her entire life. I love and was raised exploring the beautiful eastern sierra’s. Public lands matter to me because it’s our job to protect and care for them, if public lands fall into cooperate hands, that beauty will be seen as a commodity, to be destroyed for personal gain. Glass mountain is a roadless area near me and I love taking time to hike, mountain bike, and fish that area, it’s a place that feels truly connected to nature. Lassen national park is also a roadless conservation area I love that’s at risk, this area is not only teeming with natural life but also outdoor activities. On my last drive through lassen I noticed huge areas that were absolutely destroyed by logging companies, rescinding the roadless rule would only add to this devastation. The roadless rule protects the places I love most. I see first hand the effect that roads can have on a forest, drinking water, wildlife, and wildfires. Despite people insisting that rescinding the roadless rule will help fight wildfires by creating more access, This makes no sense when the data shows that 90% of wildfires start within 164 feet (50 meters) of a road. Rescinding the roadless rule means opening up our last few natural places for logging, mining, construction, and other practices looking to exploit our natural world for profits that won’t benefit the American people. For the reasons listed above, partially or fully rescinding the roadless rule under alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a colossal mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the roadless rule and support alternative 1, the no action alternative. Thank you.