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.
I am in opposition to the removal of the Roadless Rule.
I am a resident of North Carolina and I cherish our National Forest lands. I have backpacked in the Nantahala National Forest and hiked in the Cherokee and Uwharrie National Forests. I plan to continue doing so. I live in Charlotte and being able to drive 1-3 hours to natural lands is part of what makes me love North Carolina. The beauty and recreational value of these lands is in part due to the minimization of habitat fragmentation that the Roadless Rule allows. I do not want to see our public lands diminished in value by additional roads and timber harvesting.
My boyfriend is an angler and fish thrive in roadless areas. While he is not always fishing in roadless areas, fish in streams outside of roadless areas are still impacted positively from their connection to streams in roadless spots. Again, we need to preserve their value.
When I researched the roadless rule I found that it was originally implemented for economic reasons. The backlog of road maintenance in national forests was so large that it did not make sense to build more roads. That reason is still valid today. The current backlog of forest service roads is 6.9 billion dollars. As a taxpayer, it does not make sense to me to build more roads when the backlog of maintenance for existing forest service roads is so large.
Keep the Roadless Rule in place.
I am in opposition to the removal of the Roadless Rule.
I am a resident of North Carolina and I cherish our National Forest lands. I have hiked and camped in the Nantahala National Forest, the George Washington National Forest, and Uwharrie National Forest. I plan to continue doing so. I live in Siler City and being able to drive 1-3 hours to natural lands is part of what makes me love North Carolina. I am also a strong believer in conserving the nature and wildlife, both animals and plants, that thrive within our national forests and do not wish to see their habitats diminished. The beauty and recreational value of these lands is in part due to the minimization of habitat fragmentation that the Roadless Rule allows. I do not want to see our public lands diminished in value by additional roads and timber harvesting.
When I researched the roadless rule I found that it was originally implemented for economic reasons. The backlog of road maintenance in national forests was so large that it did not make sense to build more roads. That reason is still valid today. The current backlog of forest service roads is 6.9 billion dollars. As a taxpayer, it does not make sense to me to build more roads when the backlog of maintenance for existing forest service roads is so large.
I am in opposition to the removal of the Roadless Rule.
I am a resident of North Carolina and I cherish our National Forest lands. I have hiked and camped in the Nantahala National Forest, the George Washington National Forest, and Uwharrie National Forest. I plan to continue doing so. I live in Siler City and being able to drive 1-3 hours to natural lands is part of what makes me love North Carolina. I am also a strong believer in conserving the nature and wildlife, both animals and plants, that thrive within our national forests and do not wish to see their habitats diminished. The beauty and recreational value of these lands is in part due to the minimization of habitat fragmentation that the Roadless Rule allows. I do not want to see our public lands diminished in value by additional roads and timber harvesting.
When I researched the roadless rule I found that it was originally implemented for economic reasons. The backlog of road maintenance in national forests was so large that it did not make sense to build more roads. That reason is still valid today. The current backlog of forest service roads is 6.9 billion dollars. As a taxpayer, it does not make sense to me to build more roads when the backlog of maintenance for existing forest service roads is so large.
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.