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.
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr Nathan Siler
Henderson, NV
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jeffrey Dasher
Sacramento, CA
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Miss Ryan Kimball
Hood River, OR
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr Owen Dingledine
Salt Lake City, UT
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Ms Carly Anderson
South Salt Lake, UT
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Mr. Ryan Guzinski
Fort Collins, CO
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. Blake Cheney
New Haven, CT
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Ms Brianna Farrelly
Charlotte, NC
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Miss Tacey Schuenman
South Jordan, UT
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
On a personal note, I cherish the tourism and beauty of my town and hate to see it at risk for mining, logging, etc. Including heavy risks like human made fires and disruption of the ecosystem, to repeal this act is to dishonor the many communities and people who work hard to keep our forests and land healthy, and who cherish it like it should be.
Sincerely,
Miss Erin Walker
Cody, WY
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. Cody Smith
Grand Junction, CO
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. As taxpayers, we will NOT be able to realize sufficient ROI from essentially selling off our public land. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come, and we will come out all the poorer as a country.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. David Ly
Seattle, WA
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Ms. Rebecca Goodstein
Chevy Chase, MD
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Ms. Niki Mazaroli
Ventura, CA
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr Stephen Sramek
Salt Lake City, UT
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. Tom Ditolla
Salt Lake City, UT
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. Roger Strong
Edmonds, WA
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Ms. Desiree Lindemann
Napa, CA
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Miss Alyssa Zantello
Cody, WY
I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision.
The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations.
As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding.
Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come.
Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mr. Chris Schulte
Markleeville, CA
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 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 1,903 submissions in its group.