I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would devastate the public lands near my home, undermine clean water, increase fire risk, negatively impact wildlife habitat, and degrade recreational opportunities that I depend on.
I live in Reno, Nevada. At least once a week from late spring through fall I hike on trails that will be impacted on US Forest Service land near my home. Specifically, I hike the trails in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in the Rose-Evans, Rose-Thomas Meadows, Rose-Whites Canyon, Rose-Galena, and Mt. Rose Roadless Areas. I also hike in the Eldorado National Forest in the Dardanelles and Tragedy – Elephants Back Roadless Areas. I care deeply for these undeveloped lands and cherish my time spent hiking the trails in these pristine areas. I like to hike early in the morning before other people arrive, so it feels like I’m hiking in a wilderness area with no one around. The scenery is spectacular in these areas, and I don’t want to see these areas degraded. Hiking in these areas helps my mental and emotional state, and being outside with no man-made noise, tall trees and plentiful plants and animals helps me appreciate life in our fast-paced world. My hikes have helped me get through difficult times in the last 6 years after the death of several family members.
I recreate in Nevada’s roadless areas, and I support maintaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and swift passage of the Roadless Area Conservation Act. Rescinding the Rule would fragment wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, and threaten clean water supplies. Instead of dismantling a proven policy, USDA should work with stakeholders to refine and strengthen the Rule to adapt to changing fire regimes and local needs while continuing to conserve backcountry recreation opportunities.
I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.
Thank you,
Nancy Alvarez
573 Echo Ridge Ct
Reno, NV 89511