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.
The administration's reasons for rescinding the roadless rule are not accurate. Most wildfires are caused by humans within 1/2 mile of a road. Fuels reduction work may be accomplished through control burns or direct work by fuels crews. I know because I did this sort of work on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in roadless areas. Here are some of the negative impacts of more roads. The Forest Service does not have the resources to maintain its existing roads and trails. We had to cut 75 trees out of a 3-mile section of Forest Service built trail to access our favorite hunting spots. In a roadless area. More roads harm wildlife habitat. Roaded areas increase the likelihood of human-caused fires. New roads and logging will introduce noxious weeds to areas that are currently weed-free. Who will pay for these roads? Most roadless areas contain small, poor quality timber. It is not economical for a lumber company to build a road to access this timber. Roadless areas also contain soil that is not suitable for roads. Due to the Forest Service's inability to maintain new roads, they will erode. Sediment will be deposited in streambeds, damaging fish habitat. Finally, as a hunter and fisherman, roadless areas have been invaluable to my family's enjoyment of the outdoors for almost 30 years. I harvested my first elk at age 12 in a roadless area before it was officially roadless, and my latest elk, 28 years later, in that same roadless area. Loss of roadless protections will likely cause permanent harm to these incredible wild places. Recinding the Roadless Rule serves only resource extraction and special interests. This is not the will of the people and must not happen.