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 oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I grew up in Jackson Hole, Wy and now live in Montana and use public lands all the time to hike, climb, raft, and explore the lands that have been protected so that people can use them for exactly that reason and I could not imagine a world where I let alone everyone else no longer has access to these lands. Being able to recreate in the Custer Gallatin National Forest and the Bridger-Teton National Forest is very important to me. These areas also provide vital habitat for threatened and endangered species, and the rest of the wildlife living there that would no longer have an intact habitat if busy roads were built in areas that are currently Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that would no longer be protected if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is rescinded. The areas also protect critical municipal watersheds and clean drinking water for Americans, which would be harmed by rescinding the rule. In addition to this the U.S. Forest Service already has nearly $9 million of agency wide maintenance backlog, and building more roads would strain public funds. Additionally claims that repealing the rule would lower wildfire risk are contradicted by studies that show more roads frequently increase human caused wildfires.
I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I grew up in Jackson Hole, Wy and now live in Montana and use public lands all the time to hike, climb, raft, and explore the lands that have been protected so that people can use them for exactly that reason and I could not imagine a world where I let alone everyone else no longer has access to these lands. Being able to recreate in the Custer Gallatin National Forest and the Bridger-Teton National Forest is very important to me. These areas also provide vital habitat for threatened and endangered species, and the rest of the wildlife living there that would no longer have an intact habitat if busy roads were built in areas that are currently Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that would no longer be protected if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is rescinded. The areas also protect critical municipal watersheds and clean drinking water for Americans, which would be harmed by rescinding the rule. In addition to this the U.S. Forest Service already has nearly $9 million of agency wide maintenance backlog, and building more roads would strain public funds. Additionally claims that repealing the rule would lower wildfire risk are contradicted by studies that show more roads frequently increase human caused wildfires. For the reasons listed above, rescinding the Roadless Rule would be a mistake. I urge the Forest Service and the USDA to select Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I use public lands all the time to hike, ski, raft, and explore the lands that have been protected so that people can use them for exactly that reason. I could not imagine a world where I let alone everyone else no longer has access to these lands. Being able to recreate in the Custer Gallatin National Forest and the Bridger-Teton National Forest, among other wilderness areas, is very important to me. These areas also provide vital habitat for threatened and endangered species, and the rest of the wildlife living there that would no longer have an intact habitat if busy roads were built in areas that are currently Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that would no longer be protected if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is rescinded. The areas also protect critical municipal watersheds and clean drinking water for Americans, which would be harmed by rescinding the rule. In addition to this the U.S. Forest Service already has nearly $9 million of agency wide maintenance backlog, and building more roads would strain public funds. Additionally claims that repealing the rule would lower wildfire risk are contradicted by studies that show more roads frequently increase human caused wildfires. For the reasons listed above, rescinding the Roadless Rule would be a mistake. I urge the Forest Service and the USDA to select Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
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.