Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive, damaging development. Roads also create more ‘edge’ forests, and there is considerable science documenting that the forest behaves differently at the edge than in the middle in many ways. Some ecological functions of intact watersheds and dense forests cannot simply be recreated once they have been lost.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Stop it now!
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Rule, provide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
I have seen how relatively small disturbances to upland and streamside landscapes can affect erosion, sediment transport, riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, invasive species, and downstream water quality. I have also experienced first hand how difficult and costly it can be to restore these functions once they have been degraded. Protecting intact watersheds is therefore an important investment that can prevent environmental degradation and reduce future restoration costs to taxpayers.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive, damaging development. Roads also create more ‘edge’ forests, and there is considerable science documenting that the forest behaves differently at the edge than in the middle in many ways. Some ecological functions of intact watersheds and dense forests cannot simply be recreated once they have been lost.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
I recognize the legitimate challenges facing the Forest Service, including wildfire, forest health, hazardous fuels, and community protection. However, roadless protection and active forest management are not mutually exclusive. The existing Roadless Rule contains provisions that allow appropriate management activities under specified circumstances. The Forest Service can continue to use prescribed fire, mechanical treatments where appropriate, watershed restoration, and other management tools while retaining protections for intact roadless landscapes.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations. If changes are needed to address wildfire, forest health, or other legitimate management concerns, I encourage the agency to pursue targeted, science-based modifications that provide appropriate flexibility without eliminating the national rule.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule).
As noted by other commentors, new roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect America's forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations.
Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate.
Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development.
New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development.
Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 2,761 submissions in its group.