Supports rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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.
I am a long term forest land owner in upper michigan (Ottawa NF) and have commented and attended hearing regarding FS road closure policy and actions in the past decades. My comments address the upper midwest, primarily the Ottawa, but also the Nicolet, Chequamegon, Hiawatha, all located in the northern MI -WI area. My comments address this area, although I have many trips out to CO, WY, AZ and a few to MT. My recreational friends and family all support the recission of the roadless area conseervation rule(s). We all agree decision making lies at the local level, in terms of access to and road use, including logging road development in the upper midwest areas. Although complete confidence in the USFS decision making does not exist among us, someone has to be in charge of what is allowed and not. It is much preferred to have decisions for the health and use of the NF resource in our yard or area, instead of at a road restriction national level, in the hands of unknowing and somewhat ignorant decision makers. Send the roadless plan into history. Allow FS personel to return to be actual forest and resource managers with decision making authority, instead of simple salaried policy followers. A blanket roadless policy across the entire NF system is wrong. Each region and area has substantial differences requiring local intelligence. A west coast NF requires restrictions to protect and accomodate the millions of users. An upper midwest NF has you out there, and you do not see another human during your entire day (except maybe on the main road travel). So squash the overbroad "roadless" political preservation notion and start properly using the large publicly paid FS staff we have in place, and give them authority to appropriately manage their forest and to deal with their forest's need. Think about it, this may even make $$ resources available for a specific national forest to do unheard of things like replace decades old and aged bridges over beautiful remote streams, replace and fix deteriorated blacktop forest roads, and more!!
I live and spend my time in the Ottawa NF. Here in Upper Michigan, past FS road and area restrictions were caused by false USFS speculation about use damage, conflicts, need to protect, and more. In some cases ridiculous forest access restrictions were created, resulting in denied access, complete removal of use opportunity from the public, in agency attempts to define what use is correct and incorrect in vast forestland areas. This approach is faulty. There cannot be a dubbed "roadless area" plan that works across the entire NF system in the US.
Return authority back to the locale, and I do not mean the region (Milwaukee always demonstrated it has/had no clue of Ottawa NF details, only that it was unnecessary yet powerful bureaucracy). So there you have it. Dump the 'roadless" word completely, and start putting the peoples money back into developing, allowing proper use, proper access and enjoyment of their chosen NF. It's our resource and our money, not to be wasted on administration.
Caveat, I do not speak for areas out west where people numbers and the very different terrains require appropriate restrictions, but that is what actual and proper Forest Service management is for, and why it exists. We need to go back to using it.