2 files. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
Supporting material
Supporting material
The comment
As someone who gauges a place partly by what hasn't reached it yet, I'd say the 2001 Rule has done more to preserve what makes certain public lands worth visiting than any other rule.
I make weekly trips into the Angeles National Forest to get away from the people and constantly congested traffic of the Los Angeles basin.
This area already attracts people who use the existing roads to dump large trash items, strip stolen vehicles, and engage in illegal activities. It has suffered multiple massive landslides and fires in the last five-plus years.
Building more roads into our wild spaces brings more people; often the kind of people who don't respect the environment. More roads will only encourage more dumping, and increase the potential for wildfire ignition.
Making our wilderness more accessible to the general public and exploitation inevitably causes more environmental harm.
Those of us who visit it regularly appreciate and cherish the escape it offers.
Regarding the Strawberry Peak in the Angeles National Forest, California:
“The highest wildfire-ignition density was in lands within 50 m of roads (7.99 fires/1000 ha). Wildfire-ignition density was lowest in designated wilderness areas (1.75 fires/1000 hectares), followed closely by Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1000 ha). For human-caused, natural, and undetermined fires, wildfire-ignition density decreased as distance to road increased: in lands between 0 and 250 m from roads, 6 fires ignited per 1000 ha, whereas fewer than 2 fires ignited per 1000 ha at a distance class of over 2000 m from roads. — Fire Ecology (Springer Nature), 2026 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2)”
Don't walk away from the protection the Rule provides. We only have one Earth.
With thanks,
Sarah Fairfield
CommentID: RLC-20261002-KVL3B7