Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 17, 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.
To the United States Department of Agriculture,
My name is Dakota. I am a natural born United States citizen and I believe rescinding the Roadless Rule would negatively impact the wellbeing and future of this nation far more than it would benefit.
I was born in Colorado, near the Rocky Mountains. As a young child my family and myself moved to Arizona. The national parks and wildlife of that state is among the most beautiful this world has to offer. Beyond that, access to these places was a key factor in my young self developing a love of the outdoors of our beautiful country. The culture and community we see throughout the United States is underpinned by these diverse and healthy ecosystems.
More practically, the National Parks of my home state are a boon for revenue. In 2024 alone the state brought in $1.4 Billion just through national parks visits. From the Grand Canyon, to the Sonoran Desert, Tonto National Forest and more, the diverse and expansive parks of Arizona help balance our carbon emissions making for a cleaner and healthier state. Rising temperatures are especially dangerous in arid places such as Arizona. Our national parks help protect and preserve our state as a growing destination for families to call home.
The Roadless Rule is a key factor in protecting our home. Easing these protections and allowing interested bodies to alter these natural spaces not only will hurt our ecosystems, but our economy as well.
I am strongly against rescinding the Roadless Rule.
Thank you.