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.
As a citizen of Georgia and a professional wildlife biologist, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Truly wild areas are vanishing, and the US National Forests are some of the only areas remaining in the developed world that still have significant acres of wilderness. These areas are vital to preserve wilderness ecosystems and the plants and animals that depend on these large tracts of land for survival.
Increased road construction in these protected areas creates edge effects that fragment forests, increase the presence of nest parasites like brown-headed cowbirds, increase invasive and exotic species in the landscape, and impact native species that require large areas of undisturbed habitat. Additionally, as a hiker and hunter in Georgia, these areas provide quiet and remote areas away from the noise associated with human development. Roads in these areas would reduce the aesthetics and quality of outdoor recreational activities enjoyed by many residents of Georgia. We hike, hunt, and recreate in these areas to get away from urban life, and we do not want to see roads built into these areas that will increase ecosystem disturbance or that would affect the character of these areas. Georgia’s roadless areas protect clean water, wildlife habitat, intact forests, recreation and local economies. The rule already allows necessary work involving wildfire, disease and public safety. Removing these protections could increase road construction, habitat fragmentation, erosion and long-term maintenance costs. Please retain the Roadless Rule to protect these vital wilderness ecosystems.
Gregory W. Lee
3665 Forest Grove Road
Valdosta, GA 31606