I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Selma California and frequently visit the Sierra and Sequoia National Forest to hike, camp and backpack. Shut Eye Peak, Kings River, Dinkey Lakes, San Joaquin River and Devils Gulsh are a few of the local areas that will be impacted.
Local mountain communities depend on outdoor recreation economies far more than logging at this point.
Roads are where fires start. Human-caused ignitions run higher on roaded national forest land, than roadless areas. Human caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads and road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. The Central Sierra has been devastated by recent wild fires.
The Forest Service doesn't have the capacity to manage the roads that already exist or to create policy to protect the delicate ecosystems and water sheds that the Roadless Rule currently protects.
For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.
Sincerely,
Ann