Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 9, 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 Secretary Rollins and U.S. Forest Service Officials,
As a backpacker and hiker who frequently explores the Santa Fe National Forest, the majestic Pecos Wilderness, and other western National Forests I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.For a quarter-century, the Roadless Rule has protected roughly 50 million acres of undeveloped public lands from commercial logging and destructive roadbuilding.
In New Mexico, these protections are vital. Backcountry areas adjacent to the Pecos Wilderness provide critical buffer zones that keep entire ecosystems intact, protect the headwaters of the Pecos River, and safeguard essential wildlife corridors for elk, bighorn sheep, and black bears.The argument that removing these protections helps mitigate wildfire risk runs contrary to the reality on the ground. Our National Forest system already contains over 370,000 miles of existing roads. Adding more roads into remote, rugged terrain only further fragments habitats, degrades watersheds, and increases human-caused wildfire risks.We must maintain the existing balance that allows for essential forest health treatments near communities without sacrificing our last remaining wild, unroaded landscapes. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to listen to the public, protect New Mexico's wild places, and keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Sincerely,
David Minsk
Santa Fe, New Mexico