“regularly visit public lands across the Sierra Nevada”
What it names
Roadless areas
Caples Creek
The comment
Subject: Comment in Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I regularly visit public lands across the Sierra Nevada, including the Tahoe Basin and the Tahoe, El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Inyo National Forests, and I have seen how much these undeveloped landscapes matter. Rescission would expose more than 44 million acres nationwide to new roads and commercial logging, including 4.4 million acres in California.
The rule already allows for safety. Existing provisions permit thinning, hazardous fuels removal, prescribed fire, and temporary emergency access to protect public health and safety. In California, over 240,000 roadless acres have been treated, including work at Caples Creek that helped protect communities during the 2021 Caldor Fire. Rescission isn't needed to manage fire.
More roads can mean more fire. A peer-reviewed study published this year found wildfire ignition density within 50 meters of national forest roads was roughly four times higher than in inventoried roadless areas. Expanding roads risks adding ignition sources, not reducing danger.
These lands sustain water and local economies. National forests supply an estimated 65% of California's water, and roadless areas protect headwaters, wildlife habitat, and the recreation that rural communities depend on. For a state that frequently oscillates from drought to deluge, protecting our hydrological systems are critical to sustain our communities, agriculture and wildlife.
I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule in place.