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.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
Several of the trails I frequent are located in our local area, where riders must navigate terrain constructed by individuals who assume it represents what all mountain bikers prefer—namely, extensive freeride and downhill options. Rather, I favor destinations that prioritize natural settings and trails designed to maintain an authentic feel. Notably, wooden features and downhill-specific trails built at dedicated bike parks aren't necessary for an enjoyable riding experience.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact StatementSubject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
Several of the trails I frequent are located in our local area, where riders must navigate terrain constructed by individuals who assume it represents what all mountain bikers prefer—namely, extensive freeride and downhill options. Rather, I favor destinations that prioritize natural settings and trails designed to maintain an authentic feel. Notably, wooden features and downhill-specific trails built at dedicated bike parks aren't necessary for an enjoyable riding experience.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
I've recently begun mountain biking and am eager to continue doing so to improve my health and experience the beauty of the outdoors in undeveloped areas. These roadless areas offer an experience that cannot be obtained in developed land. I hope future generations are able to experience these areas as I have.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Public Comment Example Text
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
Protect our last remaininig untouched spaces..allowing industry in our wilderness will not benefit anyone but those with already deep pockets Protect nature
protect pristine land. Do not allow open road access or we will loose it forever Once rules are rolled abcck they will not be locked out again
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement
Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. As someone who regularly rides the backcountry trails in the Pisgah National Forest, these Roadless Areas offer a remote, high-quality riding experience that cannot be replicated on developed lands. Protecting these corridors ensures future generations of trail users can enjoy the same primitive, pristine environment.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces.
Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Public Comment Example Text
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
[INSERT YOUR PERSONAL CONNECTION HERE]
Example prompt: Share a specific memory, favorite local trail, or National Forest area that matters to you. (e.g., “As someone who regularly rides the backcountry trails in the Pisgah National Forest, these Roadless Areas offer a remote, high-quality riding experience that cannot be replicated on developed lands. Protecting these corridors ensures future generations of trail users can enjoy the same primitive, pristine environment.”)
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Subject:
Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To:
USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re:
Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
As a mountain biker and hiker that frequets the wilderness areas of Western North Carolina including Pisgah Forest, these Roadless Areas offer a prime example of natural beauty and provide a high quality outdoor experience that cannot be replicated on developed land. Protecting these corridors ensures future generations of trail users can enjoy the same primitive, pristine environment.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
Ben Wells
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
A concerned MTB enthusiast
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the
Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern O-Road Bicycle
Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select
the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001
Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes,
prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain
biking experiences.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and
resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks,
increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy
that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please
uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental
Impact Statement.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Best regards,
A Tennessee mountain biker and hiker of national forests and managed back-country areas
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, hiker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
I use the Pisgah Forest trails almost daily. Protecting fragile habitat for the plants and animals is important to me, as well as protecting places where we recreate. We need to leave these areas protected so that future generations may also enjoy these areas.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this extremely important matter.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
I am also an avid trail runner and hiker. Getting into nature has done wonders for my mental health and one of my favorite things to experience is places in the backcountry with absolutely no road noise… just me and God’s creation that has not been impacted by man. Please do not take away the few remaining natural escapes that this world has to offer.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
As an avid outdoorswoman, who regularly uses the trail systems between TN and NC, these lands are precious to me. Not only does protecting them ensure we continue to have access to open, natural spaces, but it protects the land for future generations. As an expectant mother, I want my child to grow up in a world that has wild spaces. Action to change the protections in place risks significant damage and a loss of these outdoor spaces for my child.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
My family and I get great enjoyment out of all mountain and open wilderness areas. Hiking, mountain biking, fishing and hunting are the best activities for our youth. We owe it to our children to preserve and protect all roadless areas!
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you,
Aaron Sunderlin
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the
Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle
Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select
the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001
Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes,
prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain
biking experiences.
Most of the Cherokee Nation Forest in my state of Tennessee is categorized as wildland
urban interface. Only very small slivers of current Roadless Areas in the Cherokee would
retain the protections due to the nature of our public lands being relatively small and close
to population bases.
Therefore, while the “modified boundaries option” might sound like a middle ground, for
the Roadless Areas in the Cherokee National Forest here in Tennessee, that option is
essentially a full rescission of the Roadless Rule. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will
eliminate virtually all opportunities for non-motorized recreation in this National Forest.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and
resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks,
increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy
that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please
uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental
Impact Statement.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
I am an avid hiker and biker, stat gazer, joy finder, adventure seeker, and lover of all things God put on this earth. Weekly I am outside enjoying mother nature. the beautiful backcountry roads and forestry is where the magic happens and a cumulation of inner peace flows outwardly to others. too. So truly the experience of nature can create ripple
effects.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail user (hiking, biking and trail running) and volunteer (trail maintenance), and as a member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.
Roadless area use and benefits are equally important compared to other natural resource uses, and any action that further opens the door to resource extraction from these areas would be short-sighted and shameful. The Roadless Area rule as-is ensures adequate balance of resources and is one of the few areas where U.S. rulemaking remains forward-looking. It is important to maintain the protections provided by the existing verbiage in the Roadless Area Rule.
Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. Take "NO ACTION"!- Jessica Milio
Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 7/24Owed an answerAug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-270774
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
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 19 submissions in its group.
Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team
Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179)
Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team,
As an outdoor enthusiast and someone who cares deeply about our national forests, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry experiences.
My connection with the outdoors began as a Boy Scout camping and backpacking in East Tennessee. The tranquil, reverent experience you feel in the deep woods cannot be replicated. And the damage done by roads cannot be undone.
The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 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 19 submissions in its group.