Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Posted October 1, 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.
Dear Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Alternatives 2 and 3). I urge the agency to adopt Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Rule entirely intact.
Unfragmented national forest lands provide irreplaceable value to our environment, wildlife, and local communities. Stripping protections from tens of millions of acres of inventoried roadless areas will open fragile backcountry zones to commercial logging and industrial road construction. This puts critical ecosystem health, native plant and animal habitats, and clean drinking water supplies at severe risk.
Creating more roads also further complicates our nation's existing infrastructure needs with wholly unnecessary roads into our pristine backcountries and wilderness.
Furthermore, the justification that repealing the rule will mitigate wildfire risks contradicts available science and data showing that most fires originate near human activity and existing infrastructure, rather than remote, non roaded backcountry. Building more industrial roads introduces additional human ignition sources and causes harmful sediment runoff into our watersheds.
Because the vast majority of the public strongly supports maintaining these safeguards, I ask the Forest Service to listen to the overwhelming consensus of Americans, respect tribal sovereignty and cultural resources, and preserve the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety.
Thank you
Watson Jones
Phoenix, AZ 85016