I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind in part or in full the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a landscape photographer and adventurer who visits public lands any chance I get. I see the impacts of human activity with the roads we already have across lands in Inyo National Forest, Los Podres National Forest, Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, Fishlake National Forest and many others throughout California, Nevada, Utah and beyond. These places are special.
I oppose to changing this because more roads will lead to more fires as fires are way more likely to start from human activity near roads than in the wilderness alone. Existing rules already allow for roads in service of fire prevention. The ground disturbance would allow for more invasive species which are a greater fire risk as described in the draft EIS.
I’m opposed to allowing commercial logging deeper into wilderness areas when there is plenty of other land already available. It’s unnecessary. The logging activity will disrupt drinking water sources and scar the landscape for short term gains that cause bigger long term losses. The roadless areas can remain roadless and areas can still be logged in a responsible manner.
For these and many more reasons, I am opposed to any rescinding of the Roadless Rule in full or in part. Please adopt Alternative 1 (No Action)