Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 3, 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 a California resident who strongly opposes repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Protected areas are absolutely essential to biodiversity and conservation of at-risk species, and the lands that fall under the roadless rule are no exception. Conservation and biodiversity is not just a matter of ethics and animal rights, it is a matter of human survival. Humans rely on the health of the ecosystem in which we live more than we may realize in our day-to-day lives. Biodiverse ecosystems are necessary for continued pharmaceutical research and drug development, prosperous agriculture that provides abundant nutritious food, freedom from devastating levels of zoonotic diseases, and protection against climate change (1). A 2021 analysis found that lands protected by the roadless rule can provide suitable habitat to half (57%) of wildlife species of conservation concern. The report also highlights protected lands in southern California as one of the most habitat-diverse areas; as a Los Angeles resident, I am particularly committed to safeguarding habitats for vulnerable species in my own backyard (2). West Nile virus (a serious and potentially fatal infection spread through mosquitos) activity has reached a five-year high in California, with 46 reported cases (compared with the 5-year average of 17.6 cases) (3). One likely cause of this uptick: loss of bird biodiversity. When bird species diversity is low, there is a documented increased human risk of contracting West Nile disease. This is because ecosystems with low bird diversity tend to have high numbers of species that amplify the virus, whereas more diverse ecosystems contain those species, as well as others that are more resistant to the infection, therefore slowing the spread (4). Land protected by the roadless rule provides unique benefits to wildlife due to their “relative ecological intactness, absence of most conflicting uses, and adjacency to existing protected areas”, meaning national parks (2). Introducing roads to natural landscapes directly harms wildlife in that area. A 2001 article outlines seven main harms as a result of roadbuilding: “mortality from road construction, mortality from collision with vehicles, modification of animal behavior, alteration of the physical environment, alteration of the chemical environment, spread of exotics, and increased use of areas by humans” (5). Introducing roads to land protected by the roadless rule, which provide important habitat for at-risk species, will further endanger their survival and further upset the already struggling ecological balance. We will surely feel the knock-on effects of this loss of biodiversity, particularly in the context of a warming planet.
Citations:
1. Ledesma, L. (2025, February 18). Biodiversity. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity
2. Matthew S. Dietz, Kevin Barnett, R. Travis Belote, Gregory H. Aplet, The importance of U.S. national forest roadless areas for vulnerable wildlife species, Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 32, 2021,e01943,ISSN 2351-9894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943.
3. CA Department of Public Health. (n.d.). California west nile virus website. Westnile.ca.gov | California West Nile Virus Website. https://westnile.ca.gov/
4. Keesing, F., Belden, L., Daszak, P. et al. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature 468, 647–652 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09575
5. Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. (2000), Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, 14: 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x