Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted September 12, 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.
I am writing regarding the proposed recission to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (docket number FS-2025-0001).
The existing 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, as it stands, is
consistent with a conservative philosophy toward the National Forests
and associated lands, and the stated rationale does not provide
sufficient evidence for rescinding the Rule.
First, the existing Rule already provides for recreation. I write as
an individual who has traveled twice this year to remote areas for
recreational purposes including hiking and dark-sky star gazing. Most
recently, I returned only this week from Lassen Volcanic National Park
and Lassen National Forest. My travels to these areas, and those of
thousands of others like me, support local economies through lodging,
food purchases, and various other expenses. The intent to travel to
these remote areas is specifically to enjoy undeveloped areas, not to
sit in traffic jams.
Further, roads have a documented effect in fragmenting forests, and
they provide a ready means for invasive insects or other species to
travel easily. The proposed rationale provides no evidence that an
increased number of roads would reduce insect or disease outbreaks.
More broadly, fragmented forests are more susceptible to disruption as
there is increased mortality for a variety of animals and generally
altering the very ecosystems that the Forest Service is charged with
maintaining.
In short, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is serving its
intended purpose and recission of it would not be in the public interest.