Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 30, 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.
I grew up minutes from a number of national forests including the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and more. I've also visited and enjoyed many national forests around the country. I strongly support Alternative 1, No Action and strongly oppose options 2 and 3. Our national forests are critical to so many aspects of life for us as well as all of the wildlife that we share the land with. Roadless areas help ensure that our drinking water remains fresh and those same areas are irreplaceable habitat for wild animals. Bird populations in the US continue to decline and the decisions of local, state, and federal governments have not done enough to protect so many at risk populations. Roadless areas are some of the last untouched areas where these birds can exist without undue human influence and we can't afford to eliminate that habitat around the country.
Not only are roadless areas important to the animals that live there, they are also indispensable for everybody that lives near those areas. They are invaluable for their recreational access. They improve the lives and well being of countless people around the US who depend on them for all that recreation in them can bring whether that's near where you live or on a vacation to see some of the still wild areas of the US.
In response to many of the claims that repealing the roadless rule will be good, I'd like to point out that science does not support that more roads in national forests will help in wild fire response. Most forest start within a quarter mile of a road and road access is rarely the limiting factor in our wildfire response. Furthermore, it seems that we already can't afford to maintain the roads in national forests that we do have and it seems illogical to therefore build more.
Finally, I think that, out of all of the reasons to leave the roadless rule as is, the best argument is that as a whole the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of the roadless rule. Why then would we take our collective public lands and repeal this rule for the benefit of a few large corporations at the expense of everyone else? It does not make sense. We have seen this before and we know what will happen. Those corporations will take as much as they can and then disappear. They will not be held responsible for the destruction they cause and all of us will be worse off for it. We must take no action on the roadless rule and leave it as is for us and for all future generations.