Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 16 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management.
Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking.
Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution.
At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
Tucson, AZ 85704
safepassages@gmail.com
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 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 16 submissions in its group.