Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 15, 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.
Please do NOT eliminate the Roadless Rule. This rule was put in place for many reasons but most importantly it protects clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and offers the scenic landscapes and recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Americans and foreign tourists each year.
Budget cuts and layoffs within the NFS already are the true culprits that are damaging our public lands and preventing sound management. The loss of the roadless rule will only increase human caused wildfires, increase invasive plant species and further endanger fragile wildlife habitats and clean water resources. We as a country can not afford to lose these resources.
US Citizens who pay taxes to support these lands do not benefit if this rule is eliminated. The only beneficiaries of the elimination of the Roadless Rule are for-profit corporate interests.
It is imperative the Roadless Rule stays in place so all Americans and foreign tourists who generate income for our citizens have access to these lands and clean air and water.
Thank you,
Deana Turnipseed
Tampa, FL 33624