Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 20, 2026 On Regulations.gov
Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.
Scorecard
Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.
Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.
How hard it is to set aside
A0 none: Counted, not answered.
Still open to the agency
Alternative already eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
Docket: FS-2025-0001 Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Submitted via: Regulations.gov
To the U.S. Forest Service and USDA:
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Department to withdraw this proposal and retain the existing national roadless protections for the approximately 45 million acres they currently cover.
Personal connection. I have spent time in the backcountry of the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho, and while Sawtooth's roadless areas fall under the separate 2008 Idaho Roadless Rule rather than the 2001 Rule this proposal targets, the two policies protect the same kind of landscape for the same reasons. What happens to the 2001 Rule matters to places like Sawtooth: it sets the national precedent and tone for how roadless backcountry is valued and managed, and it protects the neighboring forests, watersheds, and wildlife corridors across Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming that Sawtooth's ecosystems and recreation networks connect to. Weakening the national standard makes every regional variant, including Idaho's, more vulnerable to being revisited down the line.
Rescission would increase, not decrease, wildfire risk. USDA's stated justification for this rescission is wildfire risk reduction, but the best available evidence points the opposite direction. Roughly 85–89% of U.S. wildfires are human-caused, and multiple independent studies confirm that ignition density rises sharply with proximity to roads: a nationwide analysis of three decades of Forest Service fire records found ignition density was lowest in wilderness and roadless areas and highest within the first 50–250 meters of roads, with ignitions up to four times more likely near roads. Forest Service researchers studying Southern California national forests similarly found that nearly two-thirds of human-caused fires ignited along roadsides. Roads bring the primary driver of ignitions — people — deeper into the backcountry, and they also dry out and fragment forest edges in ways that make ignitions more likely even from natural causes. Opening roadless areas to new road construction would work against the very wildfire-risk goal the Department cites, not advance it.
Watershed and habitat values. Roadless areas protect the source watersheds that supply drinking water to tens of millions of Americans downstream. Roads increase sediment delivery to streams, degrade water quality, and fragment wildlife habitat and migration corridors in ways that cannot be undone once built. These are not abstract concerns — they affect the same rivers, fisheries, and big-game herds that depend on the undeveloped high country surrounding forests like the Sawtooth.
Recreation and local economies. Roadless backcountry supports hiking, hunting, fishing, climbing, and paddling that draw visitors and sustain local economies across the West. Rescinding the rule puts thousands of miles of trails and undeveloped recreation terrain at risk of fragmentation by new logging roads.
Request. I ask that USDA withdraw the proposed rescission and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. If the Department believes local flexibility is needed, that flexibility should be pursued through the forest-specific rulemaking process used for Idaho and Colorado — with full environmental review and public input — rather than by eliminating baseline national protections for the remaining 45 million acres.
Thank you for considering my comment.