Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted 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
A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.
Owed an answer on Legal.
Standard dismissals it defeats
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the removal of protections under 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. As a San Diego resident who values hiking, wildlife, and public lands, I want our national forests protected for future generations. The Trump administration’s push to eliminate these safeguards puts irreplaceable public resources at risk.
Describing conservation protections as a “regulatory burden” fails to recognize their public value. USDA should fully evaluate the potential consequences of expanded road construction and timber harvesting, including habitat fragmentation, erosion, water quality degradation, loss of carbon storage, and damage to outdoor recreation. The analysis should also account for the long-term taxpayer costs of maintaining additional roads and restoring disturbed landscapes.
I support effective wildfire prevention and responsible forest management. However, USDA should demonstrate why existing management tools and exceptions are insufficient before eliminating nationwide protections. Claims of greater flexibility should be supported by evidence showing that rescission would improve public safety without sacrificing conservation.
National forests belong to the American people. Their future should reflect long-term stewardship, meaningful Tribal consultation, and public participation. I urge USDA to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Once intact forests are fragmented, the damage can last far beyond any administration.