Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 28, 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.
There is an established and growing list of benefits supporting maintaining our remaining intact forests without further road building. From mitigating climate warming, carbon sequestration, sustaining biodiversity, providing clean water, invasive plants mitigation, mycelial forest health, big game populations, genetic resilience of predators, and the list grows as science unveils more. For years in Idaho I hunted elk and was a volunteer, for conservation groups, and now as decades ago, I vehemently support, for a plethora of established scientific reasons, the USFS's nationwide "Roadless Rule". It is humans that cause 87% of wildfires, and roads are a major culprit of these human agency atrocities, which destroy both wildlife, people and property. With every mile of new roads comes people, their fires, ATV's, fireworks, and fire prone noxious invasive plants.
Thus I strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to repeal or weaken the landmark Roadless Area Conservation Rule that has protected wild, un-fragmented forests for more than a quarter-century. This administrations rationale offered for doing so isn’t supported by science. Roadless forests incursions would harm the national forests where I recreate, like Idaho's Payette, Boise, and especially the GYE's Centennial, Caribou Targhee and Gallatin NF's.
Along with millions of Americans that supported the Roadless Rule in the early 1990's, I oppose your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and save forests for future generations of all lifeforms including humanity.
Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest, the Boise and Payette NF's, segments of the Appalachian Trail, Montana's Bitterroot, the GYE's Centennial Forest, and more, all to destructive logging and road building is reckless, unscientific, and goes against millions of Americans like myself that loudly voiced support for the RR in the 1990's.
Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. I staunchly affirm that the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential forests.
I am not sanctioning the piecemeal dismantling of our forests without a concerted fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come.
I am deeply concerned with the idea of rescinding the Roadless Rule, which is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and the outdoor recreation economy. The rescission would remove important protections for approximately 45 million acres of backcountry national forests, including more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking.
I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule and/or strengthening this landmark conservation measure. Outdoor recreation, not logging is a crucial part of our Idaho's economy, and rescinding the Roadless Rule is historically unpopular and unnecessary.
Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration.