Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live near / recreate in the West Shore of Lake Tahoe, Castle Peak. These roadless forests protect clean water, provide the quiet backcountry experiences I value, and support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless Rule already allows important wildfire resilience work — nearly 250,000 acres have been treated in California roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging at a time when agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live near / recreate in the West Shore of Lake Tahoe, Castle Peak. These roadless forests protect clean water, provide the quiet backcountry experiences I value, and support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless Rule already allows important wildfire resilience work — nearly 250,000 acres have been treated in California roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging at a time when agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I spend time every summer in the Eastern Sierra. These roadless forests protect clean water, provide the quiet backcountry experiences I value, and support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless Rule already allows important wildfire resilience work — nearly 250,000 acres have been treated in California roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging at a time when agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.
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 4 submissions in its group.
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live near / recreate in [specific place — e.g., the West Shore of Lake Tahoe, Castle Peak, Granite Chief, Caples Creek area, or the Eastern Sierra]. These roadless forests protect clean water, provide the quiet backcountry experiences I value, and support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless Rule already allows important wildfire resilience work — nearly 250,000 acres have been treated in California roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging at a time when agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 4 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 4 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 4 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.This comment stands for all 4 submissions in its group.