Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted August 31, 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.
One of my favorite places in the state of Montana is the Bitterroot National Forest, largely due to the miles of pristine trails that meander along the mountain tops and beside creeks winding through the many verdant valleys. In the winter, some of these trails can also be used for cross-country skiing, which is an exceedingly popular activity in the Bitterroot Valley and beyond. The National Forest also provides superb backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities that draw visitors from all over the state and beyond for our abundance of elk, deer, and trout.
These miles of trails and forest have for years been protected by the Roadless Rule, which safeguards not only the health of wildlife and the environment in undisturbed areas of the country but human health and recreation. A rollback of the Roadless Rule would fragment intact ecosystems, harm wildlife, and increase wildfire risk by bringing in more human disturbance to 18.5 million acres of the Greater Yellowstone Area of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming alone.
According to the National Parks Service, 85% of wildfires in the US are caused by human activity, and introducing more industrialization to these vulnerable areas will only dangerously exacerbate the fire problems we in the western half of the US are already facing. In addition, a repeal would have massive implications for all backcountry recreation and consequently the tourism industry that helps keep rural communities like mine alive. Repealing the Roadless Rule would end protections for 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater paddling, and 25,121 miles of trails across the country, effectively destroying recreational opportunities for millions of people across the country, including myself and my colleagues who are also avid backpackers, hikers, skiers, and rock climbers.
Many areas protected by the Roadless Rule also cover vital watershed areas that serve as a home for native species of trout and salmon, both fish that drive a great deal of our local tourism economy, which is dependent on seasonal fly-fishing. The impacts of erosion and pollution from logging and road-building in these areas would be disastrous for these aquatic populations and could drive communities built upon fishing tourism to economic ruin.
Finally, habitat fragmentation and wildlife disruption would severely disturb populations of elk that inhabit the National Forest and the neighboring Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. If these roadless areas of the forest are disturbed, thousands of outdoorsmen would lose a priceless ungulate hunting ground, which once again would have dire consequences for the seasonal tourism industry in my community and in neighboring areas.
There is no logical reason to repeal a policy that is so effective in balancing active forest management, conservation, recreational opportunities and rural development. There is nothing to be gained by introducing industrial activities to these areas that would outweigh the irreparable losses to the natural beauty, tranquility, and wellness of our irreplaceable land. Our public lands have widely been regarded as “America’s best idea,” and protecting our natural resources is integral to the identity and cultural of the western US, particularly in the “Last Best Place” of Montana. Due to these factors, I implore you to stop the rescission of the Roadless Rule that has served our lands and our people so well for so long.