Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 17, 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 10 year Oregon resident, formerly a 30 year California resident. Have spent hundreds of days over the years backpacking, day hiking, camping and fishing remote areas, particularly in Humboldt-Toiyabe NF (starting long before those were annexed), Stanislaus, and adjacent NFs. I continue to do so, now including NFs throughout the West. While California has added 10 million people since I started doing this, there remain wonderfully remote areas that can be reached and enjoyed and these areas must be kept remote. I have met over the years with various Forest Supervisors to express concerns and suggest operational changes that I felt would enhance and promote the use of (and thereby, the desire to keep) national forests. The Roadless Rule (as much as I despise what I consider to be tons of OVER-regulation on forest land - don't get me started) is one that I supported in 2001 and continue to think is a very good rule. It is neither necessary nor prudent to rescind this rule at this time. Please recall that the major opponents of the rule to being with were in Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska. These are enormous low-population (low density) states - vastly different from California and Oregon as well. Those states can afford to give up more real estate to roads; the West Coast can not. It would have been smarter in 2001 to have more discretion afforded in those locations. But killing the rule now is dumb. Craft a limited rescission; that would make more sense. And until a better solution is reached, maintain this current rule.