Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 22, 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 Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz,
As an artist, I understand the asymmetry between creation and destruction better than most — it takes nothing to erase what took a long time to build, and I'd ask the Department to consider what it means to destroy the wildlands it has spent so long trying to protect before finalizing this action.
Growing up in California I have personally enjoyed exploring the wild places that past generations have worked so hard to protect for us, and feel so much gratitude for their past efforts every time I step into those spaces.
Such experiences and attachments are among the values the Rule was created to secure for all Americans.
Being in a wild place and noticing the silence of human-made noises, getting to enjoy the rushing of a creek or the sounds of the birds, is something we all deserve to experience, especially those of us who live in urban areas. The opportunity for time and space away from urban pollution and noise is a golden one.
Specifically, rescinding this rule would affect the Tuolumne River in the Stanislaus National Forest, California:
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Tuolumne River, Stanislaus 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.
The roadless rule protects our drinking water, supports opportunities for outdoor recreation for all Americans, and maintains critical habitat for over 1,600 threatened species. Maintaining the Roadless Rule is supported bilaterally across parties, and the rule still maintains exceptions for wildfire mitigation - so rescinding it to address wildfire risk is a moot point. Don’t let your time in government be marked by supporting the removal of a rule that protects our dwindling wildlands.
Having reviewed the proposal, I find no basis for rescission that outweighs the record supporting the Rule, and I ask the Department to reach the same conclusion.
With urgency,
Stephanie McKenna
CommentID: RLC-20260822-B1QFAA