Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 4, 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 voice strong opposition to rescinding the Roadless Rule. Having lived for years at the doorstep of the Gila National Forest (GNF) in New Mexico (NM), I have hiked and camped throughout the GNF, as well as roadless forests throughout the west. As a rural American, I join the majority of Americans, in staunch opposition.
In New Mexico, 1.6 million acres of inventoried roadless areas safeguard wildlife habitat, mature and old-growth forests (if logged, many forests will not regrow due to decreased precipitation and hotter temperatures), river headwaters supplying drinking water to southwest NM and tribal cultural resources. Outdoor recreation is major economic driver for our rural communities. Logging and mineral extraction in these areas will negatively impact us. Many trails in these areas provide access to our wilderness areas. Equally important, roadless areas provide hunting and fishing opportunities, drawing locals and people from around the country.
Ignoring the will of the people, as evidenced by a lack of transparency and public engagement, shows a flagrant disregard for us and our natural heritage.
The administration cites fears about wildfire as justification for rescinding the Rule but that flies in the face of what the Rule allows and what science shows. The Roadless Rule allows for fuel reduction, thinning, wildfire suppression and restoration activities. Scientific research has found that about 85% of fires are human-caused and most wildfires start near roads, not in roadless areas. More roads, very likely more fires.
The GNF will be the hardest hit in my state, with 733,000 acres of roadless forests open for extraction industries. Much of our roadless forests surround our country’s first wilderness (Gila Wilderness) and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness.These roadless areas help protect endangered species and species of conservation concern.They are part of our natural heritage and should not be open for exploitation.
Clean drinking water, healthy rural economies driven by outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking and camping are provided by our roadless forests. We, the people, should be consulted. We value our roadless areas. Please do not ignore us and destroy what our country has long chosen to protect.Do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Kim McCreery