Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 4/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 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
A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.
Owed an answer on Legal.
Standard dismissals it defeats
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Date: October 6, 2026
To: Ecosystem Management Coordination, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 – Comments Opposing the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, 91 FR 53827)
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Forest Service’s proposed rulemaking titled Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, which seeks to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294). I urge the agency to select Alternative 1 (No Action) and retain full protections for all ~58.5 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) across the National Forest System.
The 2001 Roadless Rule provides critical safeguards for intact, undeveloped backcountry habitats, water quality, and public recreation while allowing appropriate management flexibility. Removing or diluting these protections will produce severe, irreversible consequences for our public lands:
* Ecosystem Integrity and Biodiversity: Inventoried roadless areas serve as essential strongholds for thousands of fish and wildlife species, including endangered and threatened species requiring undisturbed habitat connectivity. Introducing new industrial road construction, timber harvesting, and resource extraction fragments these corridors and invites invasive species.
* Watershed and Drinking Water Protection: Unroaded watersheds supply clean, filtered drinking water to millions of Americans and downstream communities. Developing roads in steep or fragile terrain dramatically increases soil erosion, runoff, and sediment loading in streams, raising municipal water treatment costs and degrading aquatic habitats.
* Fiscal Responsibility and Infrastructure Backlog: The Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance on its existing ~370,000-mile road network. Adding new roads in remote backcountry terrain creates long-term financial liabilities for taxpayers and diverts scarce agency funding away from maintaining existing infrastructure.
* Wildfire Management Flexibility: Contrary to claims that the Roadless Rule hinders forest management, the 2001 rule explicitly contains exceptions allowing emergency response, hazardous fuels reduction, public safety measures, and thin-and-burn operations near communities. Expanding permanent road networks into deep backcountry areas increases human-caused ignition risks without improving community safety.
* Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation: Intact roadless areas support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy, sustaining local small businesses, outfitters, and rural economies that rely on world-class hunting, fishing, hiking, and backcountry experiences.
Dismantling the Roadless Rule ignores decades of public consensus, Tribal consultation, and sound conservation science. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department withdraw the proposed rescission and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety.
Thank you for considering these comments.