Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 14, 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 retired from the USDA - Forest Service since 2014. Twenty-four years on the Wallowa-Whitman NF in Northeast Oregon. Ten years elsewhere for thirty-four years of experience managing our nation's public lands. I spent ten years writing Environmental Assessments (EAs), guiding Inter-disciplinary teams (IDTs) through the NEPA planning process. I know a few things about the agency and their mission to "Care for the Land and Serve the People." I wrote about Roadless Areas in NE Oregon and their purpose. I do not believe eliminating the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is in the best interest of managing our public lands. I believe in wood products and as a multi-use agency, I believe in the Sustainable Yield Act. For decades the forest service has offered logging contractors timber sales to benefit our local and nation-wide economy. However, over-logging occurred on national forest lands into the nineteen eighties. I have seen the results. It was forty lop-sided years of aggressive timber harvest following WWII that upset the balance of a functional forest. Most forest do not recuperate or will never recover should the land be sold off to private investors. Just look to private industrial lands for examples of ecosystems out of balance. Industrial lands may grow trees, but they are far from a functioning forest. You know what I mean if you truly work for the USDA Forest Service. Use your voice. There are plenty of acres designated for timber harvest on national forests. Following sustainable practices into the future will meet demands and keep private industry operational. While many mills were forced out due to competition in the 90s, the larger corporations have survived. We do not need to increase acreage for their purposes only. Those decades of aggressive logging on national forest have frustrated private industry and their lobbyists are advocating for an easy way out - ie: virgin forests. The Roadless Area Rule was implemented for this very time in history. To preserve public lands from roads and logging. To stand against a lop-sided argument for more timber harvest. Roadless areas are set aside as an example of a functioning forest complete with pristine waters, animal and microbial habitat; all providing solitude for those of us bold enough to speak out for such areas. They are set aside to one day be possibly designated as Wilderness. Our children and grandchildren will need this more than ever going forward. Do not let industry strong-arm you into a bad decision, scrambling on their behalf for more acres to harvest. We are turning a corner on national forest lands and with the past forty years of restoration treatments, have signs of a forest that will provide the necessary wood products for our citizens and our economy. All this while protecting the resources Congressional Acts have mandated.
If you have read this far, I commend you. I expect you would have stopped once you determined which pile this letter goes in to. Is it pro or con? STOP. When I replied to comments as a NEPA writer of EAs, I would respond in like manner to the effort put forth by the organization or person commenting. If it was a form letter rubber stamped with a signature, I would reply in like manner. But if it was a thoughtful letter based in careful review of the proposal and based in science, I would reply with a thoughtful response, arguing, or agreeing to the science stated. There is no science that urges we march into virgin forest for easy road construction and timber removal. There is plenty of science to argue for preserving functional ecosystems and animal habitat within Roadless Areas.
I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withdraw its proposal to eliminate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Please protect America’s national forests and keep the Roadless Rule in place. Our public lands belong to all of us, and taxpayers should not be asked to fund roads that primarily benefit private extraction and profits.
Sincerely,