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.
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Ed Chan
163 Kuumele Pl Kailua, HI 96734-2954
theechan@hotmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Francine McCullion
11209 W Marie Dr Bishopville, MD 21813-1638
francine.mccullion@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Jeffry Hammerquist
3026 SE Salmon St Portland, OR 97214-4140
hammerquist@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Amy Carlisle
704 S Myrtle Ave Tempe, AZ 85281-3726
bsnscole@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Sara Wing
1044 N Downing St Denver, CO 80218-2980
sarawing21@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Lindsey Senger
7215 Linden Ave N Seattle, WA 98103-5173
lindseysenger4@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Debra Shinneman
712 Legion Dr Columbia City, IN 46725-2026
ehireshine@yahoo.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Daniel Shinneman
712 Legion Dr Columbia City, IN 46725-2026
ehireshine@yahoo.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Joseph Serio
103 Audra Ln Brockport, NY 14420-1243
j.serio1@yahoo.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Maria Bernhard
10225 Katelyn Dr Charlotte, NC 28269-1409
mlkdirect@yahoo.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Coty Lang
11971 W Nadine Way Peoria, AZ 85383-4502
coty.onewheel@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Elisabeth E Gilgen
6018 Bentley Ave Willowbrook, IL 60527-1959
bethnodus@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Andrew Brower
323 Roberts Rd Nokomis, FL 34275-3706
lordanarkey@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Charles Mccullion
11209 W Marie Dr Bishopville, MD 21813-1638
csmfjm@mchsi.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Sue Hudson
109 W Buckingham Rd Berlin, MD 21811-1416
shudson5663@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Doreen Patrick
318 N Washington St Easton, MD 21601-3118
doreen@goeaston.net
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Peyton Murphy
508 E Olympic Ave Spokane, WA 99207-1553
peyts67@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Brian Hartwyk
24 Fairway Ln Berlin, MD 21811-1728
brihartwyk@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Raina Sfeir
9832 Garwood St Littleton, CO 80125-8814
rainas.21@gmail.com
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors.
I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.
Sincerely,
Joe Endrich
11215 W Marie Dr Bishopville, MD 21813-1638
jendrich@me.com
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 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 166 submissions in its group.