Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 21, 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 strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to choose the No Action Alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place.
As a Virginia resident, I am especially concerned about the impact this could have on the George Washington National Forest and the roadless areas surrounding Shenandoah Mountain, including Oak Knob, Gum Run, Skidmore Fork, Little River, and the Ramseys Draft Addition.
These areas are valuable for far more than their scenery. They protect clean water, wildlife habitat, mature forests, and recreational opportunities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, and wildlife viewing. Once roads are built and intact forest is fragmented, those impacts can be difficult or impossible to reverse.
I understand the need for responsible forest management and wildfire prevention, but removing nationwide Roadless Rule protections is far broader than necessary to accomplish those goals. Forest management should be targeted and science-based without opening millions of acres of currently protected National Forest land to expanded road construction, logging, and development.
The Shenandoah Valley and surrounding National Forest lands are resources that belong to current and future generations. Short-term development should not come at the expense of long-term water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and intact public lands.
Please retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and preserve these protections for our National Forests.