Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted 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.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose revising the U.S. Forest Service Travel Management Rule so that motorized access is open unless designated closed instead of closed unless open. The justification for the rule change on the summary at Regulations.gov is that the proposed rule change provides responsible officials with flexibility to better guide management. Forest Service officials already have lots of flexibility in managing local issues under the Roadless Rule. This is especially important now because water is increasingly scarce, wildfires more destructive, climate change is ongoing, and pressure on public land is increasing. The Roadless Rule has worked well for the last 20 years and enabled citizens to work out reasonable compromises on motorized access. There is no reason to think that rescinding the rule will improve this situation.
Ive lived in Montana for over fifty years, and I hike, camp, and hunt in Custer Gallatin National Forest. I used to fly fish, but I dont do that anymore because of a bad right shoulder. In the 1990's I hunted on private land more often than not. It was easy to talk to ranchers and get permission to hunt on their land. Those days are gone. There is now much less hunting access on private land. Even though hunting pressure is much greater than it used to be in Custer Gallatin National Forest, thats where I usually hunt. I walk in and if Im successful, drag out. I want places I can do that without competing with ATVs and motorcycles. One time, a number of years ago, before the Roadless Rule, I stalked a buck for an hour or so and was finally getting close enough for a good shot (I hunt with an open sight). Just then a couple of ATVs came over a grassy hill and away went my buck. I didnt like that. When I hunt, I want to be out there by myself without unexpected OHVs.
Ive never had any problems with people riding ATVs or motorcycles, and as far as I know theyve never had any problems with me. But Im aware that one difficulty with motorized users. A noticeable number dont respect the rules. Two summers ago I saw two motorcycles on near Hyalite Lake on a day when that timeshare trail was not open to motorcycles. Ive seen tread makes deep in mud on the Sky Rim Trail in Yellowstone along the border with Gallatin-Custer . More roads means more abuse. For years my wife and I and my daughter and I have hiked in national forests. When we do that, we like to be alone with the sounds of nature around us and not be interrupted by motors. Fewer places will be like that if the Roadless Rule is rescinded.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Respectfully,
Jim Allard
Bozeman, MT 59715