Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 15, 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.
Dear Chief Tom Schultz:
My name is Ken Hardesty and I live in Whatcom County, Washington and I protesting the rescission of the Roadless Rule enacted by President Bill Clinton.
I am 80 years old now and have lived in this area for over 50 years. I have hiked, camped, and photographed in these forests for all of those years. I have fished for steelhead, salmon and trout in the lakes, streams and rivers that are within these forests. I have hunted for deer, elk grouse, and ducks within these forests. I have hiked Lake Ann, Yellow Aster Butte, Goat Mountain, Cascade Pass, Table Mountain and many other trails within these forests
Standing in awe of the beauty of Lake Ann as it sits below the flanks of Mt. Shuksan
I have fished the Nooksack River for over 50 years. I have seen the returns of steelhead trout drop so much that some seasons there are no openings. The watersheds that are home to these beautiful fish have been devastated by logging, and the destruction of spawning areas. Overfishing and over population have also contributed to this decline.
Regarding the Mt. Baker North in the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington:
The Rule stays, as far as I'm concerned.
Hopefully,
CommentID: RLC-20260915-UINQJS