Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 4, 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.
Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in America's National Forests is not necessary, nor responsible. Especially in the Eastern United States, thoughtless clear cutting and mismanagement of forests resulted in the creation of the National Forest Service, whose purpose includes the following: sustainable management, scientific forestry, and public benefit. The forests are not simply for sustainable management and cutting; science and public benefit are part of the three purposes for the Forest Service. Public benefit includes areas for outdoor recreation, clean water, and wildlife habitat.
In the Shenandoah Valley, where I live, there is a proposed 70,000 acre roadless area which includes the Oak Knob, Gum Run, Skidmore Fork, Little River, and Ramseys Draft Addition. This would be the largest roadless area in the Eastern United States. It is an incredibly small area considering the George Washington National Forest comprises over 1.8 million acres. Surely, we can spare less than 4% of an immense area for public benefit, scientific discovery, and wildlife habitat of an area undisturbed by roads and all that roads would introduce into such an area. There is simply no need for the rescinding of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
In the Bible, we are urged to be stewards of creation, not only exercising dominion, but tending and caring for Creation. Allowing for such a small portion for that Creation to NOT be developed is surely good for our nation as well as for future generations who will benefit from such undisturbed areas.