Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 8, 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.
As a former U.S. Forest Service Hydrologic Technician across 5 National Forests in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, and California, I’ve experience the the wonder that lies in the depths of our public lands beyond the end of a road more than many of my fellow citizens. I’ve walked up on wolf pups in Washington, had a 200lb mountain walk up on me in Oregon, greeted a mother black bear and two cubs on a field survey, sprung bull moose while collecting water quality samples, night snorkeled a restored floodplain to find bull trout, and more. I completed my graduate research on hydrologic impacts of forest management on Lassen National Forest (Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Thinning: A Plot Scale Analysis, Serpa 2020, University of Nevada Reno). I’m an avid outdoor enthusiast, adventuring by foot, by bike, by packraft, and by rope, who takes every opportunity to share my love for our public lands with my two children who are 1 and 5 years old, especially in the Prescott, Kaibab, and Coconino National Forests near our home in Prescott Valley AZ. I have an intimate knowledge and connection to what lies beyond the end of the roads in our nation’s Roadless Areas.
I firmly oppose the repeal of the U.S. Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is critical to the wellbeing of local communities across the country and protects thousands of miles of popular trails and beloved recreation spaces—repealing it would open millions of acres of conserved forests to development resulting in irreversible damage not only to our forests, rivers and wildlife but also to the American people and future generations who rely upon them.
Further, there are significant fire risks from building roads into roadless forests. Between 80-85% of wildfires are started by people because of improperly discarded cigarettes, sparks from equipment and vehicles, unattended campfires, fireworks and arson. Research continues to prove that fires are far more likely to start alongside roads than in roadless areas. Leading wildfire scientists agree that repealing the Roadless Rule could unintentionally lead to an increase in fire ignitions.
This repeal threatens a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place.
I urge you on behalf of me, but more over on behalf of my 1 and 5 year old daughters, so that they may have the opportunity to experience what lies beyond the “end of the road” throughout their lives, and their children’s lives. Even if they choose not to go and see these places, they will be among the millions of Americans who rely on the water and other and environmental services these Roadless Areas provide. Please DO NOT rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We all need these places to remain protected, so take action on my behalf, and on behalf of my daughters to uphold their protection.
Thank you for taking action on my belay as a valued citizen, voter, and public land shareholder.