Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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.
I am writing to strongly oppose removing or weakening the Roadless Rule, particularly because of what these protections mean for Southwest Colorado, the Rio Grande National Forest, and the San Luis Valley.
I have spent time in this part of Colorado and have come to appreciate how special it is. One of the things that makes the area different from so many other places is the amount of relatively untouched public land. You can get away from roads, development, and crowds and experience a landscape that still feels wild. I think that is something worth protecting.
The roadless areas around the Rio Grande National Forest are not just empty stretches of forest waiting to be developed. They are important habitat, watersheds, and recreation areas. They support the wildlife and outdoor opportunities that make Southwest Colorado such a special place. I especially value these areas for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, and simply being able to spend time in the mountains without constantly encountering roads and development.
The San Luis Valley also has a unique relationship with the surrounding mountains. Water is incredibly important to the Valley, and healthy, intact mountain watersheds are part of that equation. I am concerned that allowing substantially more road construction could create unnecessary erosion, habitat fragmentation, and other impacts that would be difficult or impossible to reverse.
I understand that the Forest Service has legitimate challenges to deal with, including wildfire, forest health, and public safety. I am not opposed to responsible forest management, and I understand that there may occasionally be situations where access is necessary. But I don't believe that solving those problems requires eliminating protections for roadless areas across the board.
To me, the most important question is what we will leave behind. A road can be built relatively quickly, but once an undeveloped landscape is fragmented, it is extremely difficult to put it back the way it was. We have very little reason to assume that future generations will regret having preserved too much wild public land. I think they are much more likely to regret having lost it.
Southwest Colorado already has tremendous pressure from recreation, development, and increasing visitation. The roadless areas of the Rio Grande National Forest provide something that cannot be recreated somewhere else once it is gone: large, intact landscapes where people can experience the mountains in a more natural state.
I respectfully ask that the Roadless Rule be retained and that the roadless lands of the Rio Grande National Forest and Southwest Colorado continue to receive strong protection. These places have value far beyond what can be measured by the immediate economic benefit of building a road. They are part of the character of the San Luis Valley and a resource that I believe we have a responsibility to pass on intact.