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.
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.
Pertaining to the text on page 53828 (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.’’), I disagree whole heartedly that rescinding the roadless area conservation rule would have enough economic, social, and cultural impact to justify fragmenting the land that was set aside "to provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System." We already have enough Forest Service land that has been fragmented and opened to logging and other intensive activities that keeping these already protected lands off limits provides much more benefit than the potential destruction of it. Opening the already protected lands would not only harm the environment, increase the infestation of invasive species, increase erosion, increase human/animal encounters, but the economic impacts would be dwarfed by the loss of what exists there today. DO NOT ENACT THIS RULE CHANGE. I, and all those I have talked to, DO NOT SUPPORT THIS AT ALL.