Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 4/24Owed an answerPosted 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
A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.
Owed an answer on Legal.
Standard dismissals it defeats
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Quoted from FS-2025-0001-223869 “The majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule, viewing it as a threat to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival, and the ecological health of ancestral homelands.” Personally, I believe that is all we need to end the conversation and cancel the proposition to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
The corruption in the executive branch is attempting to dismantle our sacred nature, sell her off for parts and bleed her dry. I cannot fathom a more blasphemous legacy. Our legacy needs to be protecting and fostering our natural resources for ALL future generations.
The FS-2025-0001-223869 references wildfire risk, but never explains how rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would mitigate wildfire risk. There are vague mentions of active management of wildfire risk, but no specific strategies cited. Do they even know how to mitigate wildfire risk? How will rescinding the Roadless Rule benefit wildfire mitigation strategies? Inadequate information is provided by the authors of the FS-2025-0001-223869 document.
The existing 2001 Roadless Rule does have avenues for local Forest Service officials to request exemptions. When the forest is being responsibly managed and the exemption is legitimately required, local decision makers can address conservations and resource issues.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule and using The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 would not be sufficient for 2027 and future forest stewardship. The Act is outdated and does not have considerations for our current struggle with climate change. In addition, the Act does not have strong guardrails around preventing the mutilation of national forests by private extraction based companies.
The simplest conclusion is - do NOT rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.
However, if the Rule is to be rescinded, I demand as an American citizen and an enrolled citizen of the Laguna (federally recognized) tribe that these conditions be met:
- Assurance that the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) remain intact
- A permanent moratorium on logging companies, mining companies, and data center companies operating on National Forest Land
- Publicly available database for all Americans to review all petitions submitted to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) and USDA regulations at 7 CFR 1.28
- Local Forest Service officials coordinate a comprehensive environmental review for ALL land management plan revisions
- Local Forest Service officials propose ALL land management plan revisions to state ballot initiatives for citizens to directly vote for/against
- After ballot initiative passing, local Forest Service officials propose ALL land management plan revisions to federal environmental protections committee
- Upon committee review and approval, ALL land management plan revisions submitted to tribals communities with ancestral land connection or current affected interest – rightful stewards of our land – to have final authority to deny the plan revisions