Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 27, 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.
My name is John Rebers. I currently live in Marquette, Michigan, and I strongly support the 2001 Roadless Rule.
I’ve been fortunate to visit many roadless areas on public lands. The most dramatic place I’ve been is the northern Pickett Range in North Cascades National Park. To reach this part of the park, you must bushwack over rough terrain through dense vegetation to reach your reward of stunning views and high alpine peaks. I’ve also backpacked in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness in the White River National Forest of Colorado, surrounded by 14,000 foot peaks.
However, you don’t have to travel as far as the Washington Cascades or the Colorado Rockies to find the recreation, wildlife, and clean water protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Forest Service held multiple hearings that resulted in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule that has kept some of our public land free of roads and development. This includes 16 designated Wilderness Areas in Michigan, but also includes Roadless Areas in our National Forests. My favorite is the Norwich Plains in the Ottawa National Forest. I have hiked in this area to explore the Trap Hills, and was impressed by the scenery and the wildflowers there. There are also areas covered by the Roadless Rule in the Hiawatha National Forest and the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin that are within a two hour drive of my home.
I oppose the Forest Service’s plans to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and retain the roadless rule as it exists. I am also disturbed by the short comment period given for those affected by this change to voice their opinion, and ask that the Forest Service extend the comment period to 120 days.