Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 21, 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.
Dear Mr. Schultz:
In my years on public land, I've come to see the 2001 Rule as the kind of policy that does quiet, consistent work — and that becomes obvious only when you consider what the land would look like without it.
Regarding the Reister Canyon in the Mendocino National Forest, California:
Timber harvest, associated road construction, and vegetation removal directly alter roadless character and degrade habitat quality.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Reister Canyon, Mendocino National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary.
This is not right
Logging skid trails extend road edge effects deep into the forest. Skid trails extend road edge effects on plant communities up to 60 meters into adjacent forest stands, acting as conduits for non-forest and invasive species and removing interior forest species. Road construction materials such as limestone gravel further alter soil pH and damage acid-loving native species (Avon et al. 2013). — Catherine Avon, Yann Dumas, Laurent Bergès, 2013 · Biological Conservation (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.008)
The interests of roadless area conservation, sound administrative practice, and the integrity of the rulemaking record are best served by the Department's decision to keep the 2001 Rule in place.
With respect,
CommentID: RLC-20260821-Q7LJRQ