Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 23, 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 strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
As a resident of the Charlottesville area and a parent raising a young child here, I deeply value the National Forest lands that surround our community. These forests are not simply undeveloped land waiting for another use. They protect clean water, provide critical wildlife habitat, preserve biodiversity, store carbon, and give our families and future generations access to wild places that are increasingly rare.
I am particularly concerned about the impact this change could have on roadless areas of the George Washington National Forest and Shenandoah Mountain, including Little River, Gum Run, Oak Knob, Skidmore Fork, and the Ramseys Draft Addition. These are extraordinary resources in our own backyard, and once intact forests are fragmented by roads and development, many of their ecological benefits cannot simply be restored.
The bipartisan Shenandoah Mountain Act demonstrates the value our region places on protecting this landscape for the long term. The fact that legislation to permanently protect these lands has received bipartisan support makes it especially troubling to remove existing safeguards in the meantime.
The Roadless Rule has provided protection for these public lands for more than two decades. I urge the USDA to retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and prioritize the long-term health of our National Forests, watersheds, wildlife, and communities over short-term development.
I want my children — and generations after them — to inherit these forests as healthy, connected, wild places. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.