Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted October 7, 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.
Bill Clinton's 60 million acre Roadless Rule was perhaps one of the most important Executive Orders of that time!!
Back then, I personally made the issue one of my activist obligations, getting signatures and going to Forest Service meetings. It was bad enough when later,
President Bush omitted the Tongass National Forest from the "Rule" opening up those old growth forests to commercial logging, mining, etc., so now with the Trump administration adding an additional 45 million acres to the chopping block, I am here again to protest this idea with all my heart and intelligence.
I'm sure every letter you have received up until now, this last day for public comment, regarding this ludicrous idea to rescind the entirety of the Roadless Rule is full of all the reasons why this is a bad idea!! And then some!!! So, I see no need to make such a list.
Rather I wish to be noted as one who is against any policy that will lessen protections for the roadless areas of our nation. Looking at a map of the current roadless areas remaining in the United States, it would seem that to save these lands for wildlife populations, clean water & air, safe from human destruction, now and forever is the most sensible choice!!!
Leave the remaining nature alone. Do not rescind the Roadless Rule!!!