FS-2025-0001-580624

The western states have been in a drought for nearly my entire lifetime. National Forests including the Inyo, Sequoia, El Dorado, and Sierra protect valuable headwaters that provide a significant percentage of California's exurban residents' water. For example, I fail to see how constructing roads through Caples Creek in the El Dorado National Forest would positively impact the nearly 100,000 residents who rely on this undeveloped land as a source of drinking water. Even if there is no immediate intention to begin construction in this area, without proper studies detailing the impact on downstream residents that construction may have on this, and other areas like it, removing the protection of the Roadless Rule endangers communities across the United States. In addition, I fail to see how these additional roads will be good for the taxpayer. The Roadless Rule was instituted in part to stop the NFS from draining America's coffers building and maintaining new roads, when it could barely afford the upkeep on the roads it was already responsible for managing. The NFS is currently on the hook for nearly $7 billion in deferred costs for roads they are supposed to be fixing. While I could see an argument being that by adding additional roads for wildfire prevention it saves the American taxpayer in the grand scheme of things by drastically reducing fire damange and relief costs, the fact is the NFS' own research on the impact of roads on wildfires shows that roads cause more fires than they prevent. So why would we build more roads, costing taxpayers millions, while compounding the risk of wildfires? The logic does not make sense. Finally, the roadless areas are beloved by millions of Americans who enjoy hunting, fishing, backpacking, and adventuring. The adventurous, untamed American spirit lies at the heart of the Roadless Rule, and despoiling public lands against public opinion (which is decidedly in favor of the Roadless Rule) is undemocratic in the extreme.