Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 12, 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.
“Wildlife habitats for salmon, trout, elk, and other species... would be destroyed”
“depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes”
“risking species endangerment and extinction”
“protecting undeveloped, biodiverse areas”
What it names
Works cited
10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6
The comment
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
As I type this comment in the sweltering heat of yet another record-breaking summer, it's clear that no effort to mitigate the effects of climate change is too small. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would be an enormous step back. Carbon sinks that decrease the impact of the greenhouse effect are shrinking and disappearing as humans continue to develop our environment; the Roadless Rule protects old-growth forest and significant carbon storage. According to the Wilderness Society, wildfires are 4x more likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forests. Per the Sierra Club, roughly 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road.
Repealing the Roadless Rule would have a negative impact on public health and would not improve access to the outdoors. The priority needs to be protecting undeveloped, biodiverse areas to mitigate extreme weather that causes heat illnesses in many disabled people, and expanding protection of those areas. Improved and expanded ADA-compliant trails and facilities specifically would be of much more use to disabled people than exposing crucial carbon sinks to corporate interests.
Additionally, 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water, as intact forests filter water naturally. Roads will pollute these waters with runoff, making the water crisis worse. Wildlife habitats for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes would be destroyed, depleting food sources and risking species endangerment and extinction. As aforementioned, wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads. About 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road! This fact directly rebuts the administration's stated rationale- they are lying to us to push an agenda. Roadless protected areas contain vast swaths of the country's remaining old-growth forest and significant carbon storage, as well. PLUS the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog; building more roads would only add to it and make that backlog worse for all workers and citizens.
This is an easy decision if you think about it for longer than one second. DO NOT allow roads to be built in these protected areas. DO NOT allow the Roadless Rule, established in 2001, to be brushed aside or forgotten. Save the people- save the land.