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 strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lynn Herring
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Lucy Bowman
MN
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Lauren Greulich
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Ron Wallace
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Rogers-Wallace
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Ms. Dee Grimm
VA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Victoria Wingell
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Anna Michie
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Araceli Lopez Valdivia
IA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Jamie Boyda
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Mr. Matthew O Meara
CA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Ms. Lisa Billings
WA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Michael Chau
CA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Jesus Valadez
CA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Ryan McNary
MD
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Damian McDonald
OR
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Ronald Renirie
CA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Seward
MI
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Miss Lena Hiort
WA
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.
The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations.
Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change.
Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous.
Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.
Sincerely,
Jacob Ritley
OR
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 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 924 submissions in its group.