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.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 3 submissions in its group.
Keep the Roadless Rule fully intact!
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and:
- Supply 50% of California’s drinking water
- Support Tribal cultural practices
- Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting
- Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox
- Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization.
And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more.
Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Sincerely,
Heather Beatty
Placerville, CA 95667
I love exploring forest and natural wildlife without hearing construction and road traffic. We have a responsibility to our next generations to pass along the chance to enjoy the untouched nature we have left.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and:
- Supply 50% of California’s drinking water
- Support Tribal cultural practices
- Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting
- Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox
- Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization.
And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more.
Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Sincerely,
Katie Cook
I love exploring forest and natural wildlife without hearing construction and road traffic. We have a responsibility to our next generations to pass along the chance to enjoy the untouched nature we have left.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and:
- Supply 50% of California’s drinking water
- Support Tribal cultural practices
- Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting
- Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox
- Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization.
And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more.
Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Sincerely,
Katie Cook
Lincoln, CA 95648
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 3 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 3 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 3 submissions in its group.