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 comments1 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 White River National Forest signed from CO· showing 1–1Clear all filters
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Adam Love. I am a resident in Centennial, CO 80121, and I strongly oppose the full or partial removal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule protects conservation areas in the White River National Forest, Arapahoe National Forest, and other areas around the state where I recreate. Furthermore, the recision of the Roadless Rule risks jeopordizing the water quality for millions of people, threatening the habitat of threatened and endangered species like gray wolves, grizzlies, and wolverines, negatively impacting the ability for the forests to sequester carbon (especially with the potential logging of old trees), and dramatically increasing the risk of wildfire in these areas.
Roads create gateways for extractive industries. I am a father, and I am worried and frankly outraged that repealing this rule will not only harm the myriad plant and animal species that call these wilderness areas home, but will also throw away future generation's access to pristine nature. Studies have repeatedly shown that wildfire risk increases with the presence of roads. What has the agency done to adequately address these risks with the proposed recision of the Roadless Rule? What are the ecological impacts of fragmenting the wildlife corridors that will be impacted because of these changes?
Some of my favorite areas to explore are protected under the current Roadless Rule, but recision of this key peace of conservation legislation opens those protected areas to extractive industries. Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and many of the places protected are the foundation of key watersheds that cities like Centennial and Denver rely on for clean drinking water.
Again, I strongly oppose removal of the Roadless Rule, either in full or in part, and instead ask for the Forest Service to adopt a 'no action alternative' to keep the Roadless Rule fully intact. Thank you for addressing my concerns and those of countless other citizens who are looking to you to be faithful stewards of these great lands.
Respectfully,
Adam Love