Supports rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 16, 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.
Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (RIN 0596-AD66)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to submit a formal public comment in strong support of the proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66). As a private property inholder located directly west of George Peak in the Raft River Mountains (Sawtooth National Forest, Minidoka Ranger District), our family experiences firsthand the severe, on-the-ground consequences of the current "one-size-fits-all" national mandate.
The Department’s rational statement correctly notes that the 2001 Roadless Rule has "contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which in turn has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns." Our private property is a stark, urgent example of this reality. Currently, the vast majority of the timber on our inholding is dead or dying due to severe insect infestations and disease outbreaks. Because our property is entirely surrounded by an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), the strict prohibitions on timber cutting, road reconstruction, and heavy equipment access have made it virtually impossible to actively manage or mitigate this ecological crisis.
We cannot safely clear the dead and infested timber, nor can we establish critical fire breaks to protect our upcoming off-grid cabin build and the surrounding public lands. The 2001 rule’s insistence that exceptions be "infrequent" and clear a gauntlet of inconsistent administrative reviews has effectively tied the hands of both landowners and local rangers while the forest health rapidly deteriorates. The dead fuel load on our property and the adjacent federal land poses a catastrophic wildfire risk to the entire George Peak area.
As stated in the proposal, conditions in the Western United States have changed substantially since 2001, marked by "increasing drought, extreme temperatures, wildfire frequency and severity, and insect and disease outbreaks." A blanket national prohibition is no longer a viable conservation strategy; it has become an administrative barrier to ecological survival.
We strongly agree with the Department’s position that returning primary authority to the local level via the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) framework is the correct path forward. Local decisionmakers at the Minidoka Ranger District thoroughly understand the unique "checkerboard" private-public boundaries and specific environmental crises of the Raft River division. Giving local officials the place-based discretion and flexibility to approve collaborative, active management tools will allow us to address our forest health concerns safely and efficiently.
For these reasons, we urge the USDA to finalize the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule to restore responsible, localized balance to our public and private forest lands.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Jane Gorney, Inholder
Tremonton, UT 84337