Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 7, 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.
Hi, my name is Steven Rozmanith and I am a young man living in Boulder, Utah. The Dixie National Forest, protected under the roadless rule, forms important headwaters for the town and myself, with dozens of creeks full of fish and life coming down the aquarius plateau. This part of the forest gets significantly more rainfall than the surrounding desert, so this water is essential for all life nearby. It is also protected by the roadless rule. Utahns have been unfortunately distanced from the process of managing our public resources, with tourism and hunting money buying decisions about our resources instead of the people who live there, in agricultural communities like Boulder. Repealing the roadless rule gives these decision makers another lever to pull to extract resources from the land. This only starts with building roads that cut through wildlife corridors and otherwise clean watersheds while reducing water retention in the soil. It extends to opening up new land to logging and other practices that will lower water retention in the soil and lower the quality of life for people on the aquarius plateau. Please keep the roadless rule to protect the people who have been disenfranchised by our lack of wealth.