Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted August 27, 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.
“support outdoor recreation and subsistence practices”
The comment
Dear Secretary Rollins,
Over 25 years ago, roadless protections were established after more than 600 public hearings nationwide, and over 1.6 million public comments supporting the Roadless Rule—the most public input ever received on any federal rule. These wild places matter to us.
In Alaska, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests highlight what is at risk if we lose this rule. The Roadless Rule currently protects millions of acres in Alaska from road construction and large-scale clearcut logging, safeguarding intact landscapes that support recreation, guiding, subsistence use, and healthy salmon watersheds. Repealing these protections would threaten the trails, wildlife habitat, and coastal ecosystems that local communities and outdoor businesses need to thrive.
Roadless areas provide essential habitat for wildlife, safeguard clean drinking water, and support outdoor recreation and subsistence practices that communities rely on. Roadless areas also safeguard vast stretches of remaining old- and mature-growth forests, irreplaceable trees that fight climate change by storing carbon and cooling temperatures through natural canopy cover. Weakening these protections would accelerate pollution, while undermining our ability to reduce it through natural processes.
Our public forests belong to all of us - and they are not for sale.
Thank you,
Cheryl Fergeson
West Haven, UT 84401