Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 7/24Owed 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.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.
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.
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.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Clara Hildman, and I live in Loveland, Colorado. I am writing as an individual to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I’m writing to specifically address the section of the proposal regarding Purpose and Need for Action where there is a paragraph that speaks about resource use in certain areas.
“Specifically, this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.
In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.”
In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.”
In Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the President declared that “it is the policy of the United States to fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources” and “maximize the development and production of the natural resources located on both Federal and State lands within Alaska.” Consistent with this policy, Executive Order 14153 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to reinstate the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule that exempted the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the 2001 Roadless Rule.
This proposed rescission does not mandate timber cutting or road construction but would relieve regulatory burden relative to management of National Forest System lands.”
I would like to highlight this last sentence in contrast to the previous language of what came before it. It seems to slightly contradict the previous phrasing of things like “...maximize the development…” and “...fully avail itself of Alaska's vast lands and resources”.
I believe this proposed action requires adjustment because the current rule that is in place has been shown to improve the wilderness character, opportunities for solitude, a noticeable lessen in pollution, and protects our forests. For example, in my community, I have seen how the presence of trucks close to the wilderness area can affect the environment near said road.
To improve this rule and better serve the public, I recommend that the agency:
Find a alternative to rescinding the rule completely
If the rule does get rescinded, to find restrictions and a type of strict management with the absence of this rule
Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on this important matter and for your time in reviewing substantive public feedback.
Sincerely,
Clara Hildman