Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted October 6, 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 am a concerned American citizen who has visits Alaska's Chugach National Forest often and I adamantly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001
Roadless Rule. I implore Chief Tom Schultz to maintain the status quo and allow the
Roadless Rule to continue as written.
National Forest Service land is public land which means it should be managed in such a
way that it remains a public investment for generations. The roadless rule helps to
preserve undeveloped forests and other sensitive ecosystems within National Forest
Boundaries. A forest does not have to be mined or logged in order to have value- it has value as habitat for wildlife species deemed desirable for eco-tourism as well as hunting. It has value as land left largely untouched by humans which is
one of the rarest resources left on earth. In regards to wildfire management, the forests were over managed for many years in the 20th century which led to a catastrophic accumulation of fuels and thus resulted in extremely severe wildfires. This prompted current wildfire mitigation strategies including prescribed
burns because there are so many forest types that actually rely on fire regimes to
remain healthy. Making an argument for wildfire mitigation and suppression as a reason
to rescind the roadless rule is not sensible. Intact forest away from human infrastructure will have a fire regim. Not everything on this earth needs to be managed by humans. As stated previously, there are some ecosystems that are ignificantly worse off due to over management. Let's focus on fire mitigation in key areas around pre-existing infrastructure. Additionally, opening up more roadways will allow higher levels of access which, based on evidence, will lead to even more wildfires since the predominant cause of wildfires is human (85% according to the National Park Service). Furthermore, the US Forest Service is already critically understaffed and behind on all types of maintenance projects, especially road maintenance. If the USFS is unable to maintain the roads it currently has, it will be impossible to keep up with even more. I feel it would be a much
better and logical use of funding to maintain pre-existing infrastructure and resources. I understand that this current administration has a strong focus on timber and mineral extraction, however those needs must be strongly balanced against every other user group. When an area is used for timber extraction or mineral extraction, that effectively cuts off every other user group- no one is able to or wants to go and hunt around an active mine or hike through an area that is being actively logged. Rescinding the Roadless Rule may further the narrow desires of the current administration to address the interests of a small number of user groups but, the general public, the largest user groups by volume have issued a resounding rejection. Roughly 95% of the 1.6 million comments on the original 2001 rule were in support of creating it. Roughly 99% of the over 600,000 comments on the initial notice of proposed recession were in opposition. The US Forest Service proceeded anyway, ignoring the voice of the public. The job of the federal government is to represent all of the public, not just the companies that have the most money to throw at policies or the whim of a capricious president. I implore you to listen to us, the 99%, and steward our public lands in a way that will preserve them- intact- for generations to come.