Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 14, 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.
Hi there,
My name is Emma Grusing and I strongly oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have been living and working in rural western Montana for the last decade, in many areas that would be devastated by the rescintion of this rule. Over 6 million acres of Montana forests are protected by this rule! I have worked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, state wildlife agencies, and non-profits centered around caring for the plants and animals across the landscape. The forests of Northwestern Montana are some of the most incredibly beautiful areas in our country and are incredibly special to me. Building more roads throughout these forests would create devastating affects on water quality, land stability, wildlife, and native plants. There are many rural towns near roadless areas across the country that rely on these areas for clean drinking waters, and building roads would degrade that quality and quantity singificantly. Clean drinking water is a basic human right our government should bo happy to provide its citizens. Moreover, the United States is unique in that we have so many roadless areas that are still largely untouched by extractive resource practices. This benefits the amazing wildlife we still have as compared to countries in Europe where their native wildlife has been stripped away time and time again, with many species going locally instinct in several areas across the continent (i.e. wolves and brown bears across England, Ireland, and Scotland). An increase in roads and construction will interrupt the life cycles of our beautiful wildlife (lynx, bears, wolves, amphibians, birds, etc). Not to mention, the rescintion of this Rule will irrevocably damage habitats that are already under pressure in a changing climate. Kootenai National Forest in northwestern Montana is a prime example of all I said above. This forest is logged, yes, but the increase of roads for logging would be catastrophic for the ecosystem. The Yaak river area of the Kootenai national forest is nearly a rainforest and encompasses so much natural beauty that would be a devastating loss in the building of more roads for increased logging. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place. The rescintion of the rule will not protect us from wildfires. 90% of wildlife start near roads and are 4 times more likely to start near roads, so logically, an increase in roads will equal an increase in fires. The Centennial Mountains and the Gravelly mountains of southwestern Montana are two more places that are home to me and are protected by the Roadless Rule. The areas are already experiencing drought and building more roads through the wilderness would be devastating. This area is so remote and acts as a wildlife sanctuary. Degrading water quality, increasing human disturbance, increasing wildfire risk, and decreasing access to public lands are all at risk if you rescind this rule. I would also implore you to consider Indigenous cultural values of these protected lands. These are areas where Indigenous peoples have traditionally resided for thousands of years, and they still have traditional sources of foods, fibers, and medicines that would be stripped away in the rescintion of the Roadless rule. The last thing I would like to mention is the fact that we as Americans have a right to our public lands. We have a right to retain the natural beauty of our public lands. We have a right to access our public lands and have them managed in a way that benefits us, the wildlife, and the plants. Building more roads for increased logging is not the way. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Please keep it in place for the health and safety of our future generations. Thank you,
Emma Grusing