Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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.
“poorer air quality for millions of Americans that will promote increased chronic disease”
What it names
Works cited
10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2
The comment
I oppose repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Revoking this rule represents increased harm to public health, wildlife habitat destruction, increased spending on additional road upkeep at the taxpayer's expense, and jeopardizes clean drinking water for 24 million Americans according the the US Forest Service's own draft environmental impact statement. Introducing more roads into old growth forests will promote increased wildfires, not help to prevent them as is being claimed by this administration. Data shows that the majority of wildfires are started within 50 meters of a roadway through increased human activity (Aplet et al., 2026). More wildfires means poorer air quality for millions of Americans that will promote increased chronic disease. Increased activity from logging and mining ventures will increase soil erosion, sediment runoff, and pollution discharges into remote watersheds that supply drinking water for millions of Americans. At a time when we face increasing drought and competition with tech industry for clean freshwater, additional contamination from logging and mining would place even greater strain on clean drinking water for American taxpayers and agriculture.Damage to wildlife habitats, including endangered species, will be significant and will severely impact biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Lastly, the introduction of roads for use by industry into remote American old growth forests represents a sharp deviation from a long-held belief that our pristine wilderness is meant to be preserved, something that has always garnered bipartisan support. Additionally, the US Forest Service will be responsible for maintaining these roads at taxpayers' expense. Current reports from the US Forest Service show that there is already a multi-billion dollar backlog of road maintenance given the strained resources under current USDA and US Forest Service leadership. These strained resources are also insufficient to handle the increased number of wildfires that can be expected with opening up these forests to industry activity. The American people do not want this rule rescinded. I strongly oppose repealing the Roadless Rule for the reasons stated above.
Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2