Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 14, 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.
“Studies show that fires are much more likely to start in areas with roads”
“this rule will put us at more risk for wildfires”
The comment
I have spent time in the National Forests every year of my life, and I am over 50. It is so important to maintain wilderness in trust for our children; once destroyed, it is almost impossible to recreate. Millions of Americans hike, climb, bike, boat, and otherwise enjoy these forests. The Roadless Rule has worked well. My children have grown up knowing the San Juan area deeply. We have spent weeks together, hiking, huddling in a tent, splashing in creeks.
The roadless areas acts as purification for water for millions of us, and the forests as carbon sinks to offset growing climate change. They aren't just for recreation; they are our nations lungs, and changing this rule would benefit a few for a short time. Keeping the rule will benefit millions forever. Studies show that fires are much more likely to start in areas with roads, so this rule will put us at more risk for wildfires. Building the roads will cost taxpayers too much money, and suck resources from an already thinned Forest Service.
Choose Alternative 1: no change.
Sofia Martinez
Austin, TX 78705