Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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.
“past the point of no return from environmental damages due to global warming”
“Destroying more of our forests will only make this problem worse”
What it names
Works cited
10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6
The comment
As an American, I have always loved our forests and am proud to have such incredible wildlife in our country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would destroy the landscapes I and so many other Americans love so much. More than that, it has been proven scientifically that dividing forests with roads increases the likelihood of extreme wildfires (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) which will endanger our landscapes, our wildlife, and our people. 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road, and they can quickly burn out of control, destroying our treasured landscapes.
This land also acts as a vitally important carbon sink as our summers continue to grow hotter and our environment continues to suffer damage due to human interference. Earlier this month, the UN announced that our planet is past the point of no return from environmental damages due to global warming. Destroying more of our forests will only make this problem worse. If the administration is concerned about damages from wildfires and other natural disasters, our priority should be preserving these areas, not opening them to development by corporate interests.