Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 3, 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.
I am a retired National Forest Wildlife Biologist who worked on three National Forest across the country (Cleveland NF, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and Shawnee NF). I served in the USFS for approximately 33 years. I received many awards in all three locations for high quality fish and wildlife management and both short and long term planning for 4 Forest Plans for those NF’s. As part of my job, I spent many hours in roadless/wilderness areas in those NF’s. I also worked on a number of wildfire crews working in a number of roadless areas on other NF’s throughout the West. In all those jobs/experiences I observed some of the most unique and diverse landscapes and habitats for fish and wildlife because they were minimally disturbed by roads and road related activities. I strongly disagree that these areas needed to be roaded in the future for management actions. Based upon my observations and experiences needed forest and fish/wildlife work in these areas can be done without roads. I am opposed to elimination of the roadless area rule of 2001. Thank you for allowing me to comment. Steve Widowski, Vienna, IL