Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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.
I strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, identified as RIN 0596-AD66 and docket FS-2025-0001.
For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has protected millions of acres of national forests from road construction, commercial logging and damaging development. These undeveloped forests protect drinking water, provide essential wildlife habitat, store carbon, support outdoor recreation and preserve irreplaceable natural places for future generations.
Repealing the rule would remove nationwide protections from approximately 44.7 million acres of national-forest land. It could expose previously protected forests to logging roads, timber extraction, mining, energy development and habitat fragmentation. Once an intact forest is divided by roads and industrial activity, its wildlife habitat, clean water and natural character may never be fully restored.
Individual forest-management plans cannot provide the consistency, certainty and nationwide protection offered by the Roadless Rule. Eliminating this safeguard would also shift the burden of opposing damaging projects onto local communities, conservation organizations and Tribal governments—forcing them to fight proposals one forest at a time.
Our national forests belong to every American. Their long-term ecological and public value should not be sacrificed for short-term commercial gain.
I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to:
1. Withdraw the proposed repeal.
2. Retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
3. Preserve strong nationwide restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction and commercial timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas.
4. Protect clean water, wildlife habitat, Tribal cultural resources, climate resilience and outdoor recreation.
Please select the “No Action” alternative and preserve the existing Roadless Rule. America’s remaining roadless forests deserve stronger protection—not a sweeping rollback that could permanently fragment these extraordinary public lands.
Thank you for your time.
Gloria Kim
Edgewater, NJ 07020