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.
1 unique comments2 submissions
Position
Opposes rescission 100.0%
Answerability
A1 strong 0
A2 moderate 0
A3 weak 0
A0 none 0
Topics raised
Count
Position
Answerability
Substance /24
Order
1 unique comment naming Wasatch-Cache National Forest signed from UT· showing 1–1Clear all filters
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to fully or partially rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I am an ex-Forest Service employee, where I worked to educate the public on Leave No Trace principles and interpretation, and worked for several seasons both as a wilderness ranger and a wilderness trails crew member. I no longer work for the agency, but I am still an avid hiker, backpacker, and fisherman, and deeply value my public lands and the opportunities they give to spend time in the wilderness, encounter wildlife, and reconnect with myself through the natural world. National forests and inventoried roadless areas matter deeply to me because they provide that space for exploration and peace. As a resident of the Salt Lake Valley, I recreate in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, one of the most heavily used National Forests in the country. That forest protects Salt Lake's watershed, Current roadless sections include heavily used areas like Dog Lake and White Pine and vast tracts of the Unitas providing buffer zones around the High Uintas Wilderness, all of which protect our watershed and the ecosystem services our mountains provide. There are many, many places in the UWC with plenty of roads and access and development--as a Wasatch Front resident who has spent plenty of time stuck in the ski traffic jams up the canyons, I can definitely speak to that development.
Fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule would threaten unfragmented backcountry landscapes, wildlife habitats, and clean water sources. Roads fragment ecosystems in ways that cause long-term ecological harm, and dismantling these protections undermines the natural integrity of our public lands.
I urge the Forest Service to drop the proposed rescission and instead support Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative) to maintain full, permanent protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Clare Vergobbi
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
c.vergobbi@gmail.com