Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted September 18, 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 who it may concern, I believe that creating easier ways to get deep into the forests will ultimately create longtm term issues in the following areas: 1. More campers will create more trash in remote areas, especially along waterways and lakes (I have a truck bed full of trash from labor day campers after just a few hours pick up) more habitat destruction, (from utv, atvs and vehicles), wildfires that are harder to fight and people getting lost and dying in remote areas.
While we do need to figure out more lumber sources, and many areas could stand some thinning, turning it over to private commercial companies (unless there's major forestry oversight) will end in loss that will take centuries to repair.
This is a shortsighted idea at best.
I like in the middle of the tonto national forest, I've hiked it in all directions, I grew up here and it's my home, I'd hate to lose more pristine forest to muddy roads with hundreds of trash filled campsites.
Few respect the forest while camping and hiking, this rescinding will make it easy for the disrespectful to do more damage.
It's disgusting to go hiking just to pick up dental picks, beer cans and broken outdoor equipment.