Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted September 16, 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.
Hello, I am a 19 year old college student in oregon. I strongly oppose the repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule My first college experience was backpacking the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest wilderness area. It was one of the best times of my life. I saw mountain goats, and did some of the most physically difficult hiking I have ever done. This rugged wild landscape untouched by roads or human intervention is something I will forever treasure. I love this country because it is governed by the people or at least it should be. Repealing this law would destroy my love for this country and make me lose my faith in the government we have today. I love our public lands, I love that I am able to go out and enjoy the untouched forests and lakes. I dont care that I might need to hike a few miles in, that is part of what makes these areas so special.
I hate wildfire. I think that we need to do everything that we can to prevent the unnecessary loss of forest, life and property. I do not believe that repealing the roadless rule is the solution. Over the last 20 years over 84% of wildfires have been started by people. more roads means more people and more fires. IT IS NOT WORTH IT.
Please do the right thing, keep these environments pristine for my generation, for my kids, and their kids too. I'm begging you.