Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted August 31, 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.
Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001
The creatures we still share our world with deserve better than this. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and I am filing this comment because roadless areas in the national forests are among the last places where clean water, clean air, and the surviving remnants of wildlife still hold together. Those three things are not abstractions to me. They are the reason these lands matter, and they are precisely what this proposal puts at risk.
The agency's own draft environmental impact statement documents what road construction and timber harvest do to biological diversity, and then stops short of applying that knowledge to the lands actually at stake. Studies sponsored by agency itself show that the risk of wildfires, impacts on endangered species, and controls on climate change will all be harmed by opening up these lands to roads and other uses.
So I strongly oppose this rescission. The roadless areas of the national forests protect clean water, clean air, and wildlife that cannot be recovered once lost. The agency's own documents show the harm coming. It has not shown how that harm will be prevented.
Please listen to what I--and so many others like me--are saying. This is an important issue, and one whose ultimate fate will be on our minds on the coming election day, and in 2028 as well.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wallace
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520