Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 23, 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 a parent, I submit that the administrative record before the Department reflects a systematic underweighting of future values relative to present ones — a bias that the agency's statutory mandate, properly understood, requires it to correct rather than institutionalize.
I have raised my son in this forest community and beyond the recreational it is vital to the economy, and the future of this community.
One visit made that connection concrete.
My son was not particularly athletic nor motivated to be outdoors when he was young. We hiked and spent time in this beautiful area anyway. He has now grown to love and respect the forest beyond what I ever dreamed. Quality of life is utmost for all of us. The forest provides that-it improves and preserves mental health for many.
It is against this background that I urge the Department to retain the 2001 Rule in its current form.
Regarding the Ash Creek in the Prescott National Forest, Arizona:
Balch et al. (2017) found human-started wildfires accounted for 84% of all wildfires, tripled the length of the fire season, and were responsible for nearly half of all area burned
The 2001 Rule reflects a considered, notice-and-comment judgment that the Department has offered no adequate basis to reverse; it should remain operative.
Thank you,
CommentID: RLC-20260823-1WJ5TSP