Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted September 7, 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 writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal to rescind, weaken, or grant state-level exemptions from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) for National Forest System lands in California, with specific concern for the Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) within the Klamath National Forest.
The Klamath National Forest contains over 300,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas that safeguard irreplaceable biological diversity, cold-water fisheries, and steep headwater slopes. Rescinding roadless protections in this specific region would exacerbate wildfire risks, compromise salmon recovery, and create severe financial and environmental liabilities for the U.S. Forest Service.
I urge the Forest Service to maintain full 2001 Roadless Rule protections.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule in California, and specifically within the Klamath National Forest, would sacrifice vital clean water supplies, jeopardize sensitive fish populations, and increase human-caused wildfire risk on steep, fragile landscapes. I respectfully request that the Forest Service reject any effort to rollback or carve out exemptions from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.