Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 24, 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.
Dear Mr. Schultz:
As a citizen for whom the climate trajectory is not background but foreground, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the record for which establishes contributions to forest carbon and watershed integrity that the Department's stated rationale does not adequately engage.
I have been thankful for roadless areas on our map since I first learned they existed almost 20 years ago. Not only is it advantageous from a logistical, environment, and climate standpoint, it is beneficial from a mental and quality of life standpoint as well.
The lands that sustain that connection are roadless because deliberate policy has kept them so; the proposal before the Department would undo that policy without demonstrating that the public interest is better served by doing so.
Regarding the Farles Prairie in the Ocala National Forest, Florida:
Intact roadless landscapes support functional soils, hydrology, and food webs that fragmented forests cannot replicate.
Roadless areas buffer and connect existing protected lands. Roadless areas are directly adjacent to protected areas on 58 percent of their land, expanding the six largest core protected areas in the lower 48 by an average of 25 percent. They also reduce isolation between protected areas and add representation of underprotected ecosystem types — including temperate grasslands and cool temperate forests — that the existing protected-area system does not cover well (Talty et al. 2020). — McKinley J. Talty, Kelly Mott Lacroix, Gregory H. Aplet, R. Travis Belote, 2020 · Conservation Science and Practice (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288)
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Farles Prairie, Ocala National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary.
I think that rolling back the 2001 Rule is shortsighted and selfish, not only for other species but for the future of humanity. We need to think about who and what will come next, instead we prioritize ego and perceived short-term benefits. It is already a struggle to keep ecosystems functioning well, repealing the 2001 Rule will make that mission even more difficult to obtain. And for what? Humans aren’t meant to go everywhere on this earth. Let her keep her secrets. Let her function in the natural way she figured out, without human interference. We have enough roads in this country. Why don’t we go use more on maintaining existing roads than on building frivolous new ones.
The Rule's durability across administrations of both parties is evidence that it reflects sound, enduring policy; rescission is not warranted.
Yours truly,
CommentID: RLC-20260824-JBCEXB