Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted 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.
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule has protected roughly 58–59 million acres of national forest land (nearly one-third of the National Forest System) for 25 years, and repealing it would cause irreversible harm to wildlife, water, and public lands that belong to all Americans.
1. Roadless areas are irreplaceable wildlife habitat.
Although inventoried roadless areas make up only about 2% of land in the lower 48 states, they provide habitat for well over half of vulnerable terrestrial wildlife species, including hundreds of plants and animals listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. These lands also serve as critical connective corridors between national parks and wilderness areas for wide-ranging species like grizzly bears and elk. Opening them to road construction and logging would fragment habitat that, once developed, cannot be restored.
2. Roads degrade water quality and increase flood/erosion risk.
The Forest Service’s own Watershed Condition Framework identifies road density as a key driver of degraded water quality and quantity. Rescinding the rule would allow new road building in the very areas that currently protect clean drinking water for downstream communities.
3. The wildfire-risk justification for this rollback is not well supported.
The proposal argues that removing roadless protections is needed to reduce wildfire risk, but recent research shows roadless areas have burned at rates similar to or lower than roaded forests over the past decade. Roads themselves are a leading cause of human-ignited wildfires. If wildfire risk is the real concern, targeted, science-based fuel treatments — not a blanket repeal of protections on tens of millions of acres — is the appropriate tool.
4. This is a wholesale repeal of a rule the public strongly supports.
The 2001 Roadless Rule was the product of one of the most extensive public engagement processes in federal rulemaking history, with the overwhelming majority of the more than 1.6 million comments received in support of it. Comments submitted during the 2025 notice of intent to repeal likewise overwhelmingly opposed rescission. Replacing a durable, science-based national standard with ad hoc, forest-by-forest planning removes a consistent baseline of protection and instead exposes these lands to inconsistent management and the political pressures of the moment.
5. “Local flexibility” does not require full repeal.
Land managers already have mechanisms to address genuine local needs — including existing exceptions in the 2001 rule itself for activities like fire risk reduction. A full national rescission goes far beyond what is needed to address legitimate local circumstances, and instead removes durable protection for wild, undeveloped forest land across 38 states.
For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.
The Boise National Forest, which starts not far from where I live, is already protected under Idaho’s own state-specific roadless rule. While I certainly appreciate this, our country’s beautiful forests and public lands deserve federal, not just state, protection.