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.
Please do NOT rescind the Roadless Rule!
The 2001 Roadless rule was a bipartisan rule that went through a lengthy public comment period. Rescinding now is ill conceived and not in the American people interest. More roads will create more forest fires and not prevent them. Forest fires are mostly started by humans with dragging chains, tossed cigarettes, campfire not extinguished. As a person who backpacks, hunts and hikes, knowing that our forests are protected for future generations across all states is what makes the 2001 Roadless rule so valuable and is irreplaceable. I urge you to visit Dixie National Forest in southern Utah and see for yourself the web of roads and the destruction of the forest near Duck Creek Village. We need to manage the roads we already have and increase the funding to take care of them. We also need our forest to be healthy, wildlife habit not fractured, and our streams free of sediment not caused by nature.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.