“maintaining areas of intact public lands across our entire county”
“Our intact public lands are already limited enough, and should be preserved”
What it names
Roadless areas
Wilson Creek
The comment
I urge the U.S. Forest Service not to repeal the Roadless Rule.
The Forest Service should focus should be on the overall managing and improving habitats in these roadless areas rather than a narrow focus on road-building and timber harvests in remote areas that are sensate ecologically.
I am a lifelong North Carolina Resident and have spent a lot of time in the Outdoors in my state and the neighboring state of Virginia. I believe strongly in the importance of maintaining areas of intact public lands across our entire county. Our intact public lands are already limited enough, and should be preserved. Many animal species listed or proposed under the Endangered Species Act live in the areas of wilderness included in the Roadless areas. I believe lowering protections established by the Roadless rule will cause detrimental effects to these species and that are already part of overly stressed wildlife populations.
Regarding the argument for localizing these rules: Many of these populations are bird populations. Many birds are also seasonally migratory, managing local populations are often local to multiple areas of the country seasonally. With this in mind its important to have federal envelopment so that local decisions do not have disasterous effects on other areas viisited by migratory bird patterns.
In my life I have had the great pleasure to spend time hiking and camping in the Wilson Creek area, a roadless area in western North Carolina. Sections of it included in the removal from the roadless area in Alternatives 2 and 3 on the proposed map also specifically concern me. Having spent time in this area I am certain that development and logging that the rule change will bring will detriment the outdoor experience for visitors in the area, and impact local tourism incomes negatively.