Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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 and my family are strongly opposed to the Trump administration and the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
My educational background is a BS in Limnology and Marine Biology (University of Texas, Austin) and a Masters in Civil Engineering (University of Washington, Seattle). I worked at Boeing Aerospace with Supercomputers doing Finite Element Modeling. My work included modeling aeronautics for commercial, space, and military systems. I also worked for Boeing at the Hanford Nuclear Waste Site in Richland WA. The work required groundwater modeling to determine where nuclear waste stored in Basalt caverns would spread over time.
For three years, I have been the FIREWISE Captain for our Idaho neighborhood near the Boise National Forest. Every year now we have numerous nearby wildfires that threaten our neighborhoods, agricultural land, forests and for us personally both our Boise and Stanley properties. Various studies show that building roads fragments wildlife habitats, increases soil erosion, releases stored carbon, and elevates the risk of human-caused wildfire ignitions linked to increased access.
Eighty percent of the fires in the West are human caused. Careless “practice” shooting of firearms, inappropriate campfires, sparks from vehicle chains or mufflers, tossed cigarettes, lighting of fireworks, and arson will increase if additional roads make access deep into the forest and in dry grasslands possible. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will only increase the number of uncontrolled fires, unprosecuted perpetrators and fire-fighting costs.
The Trump administration has severely reduced funding to manage and protect our forests. Numerous knowledgeable public servants (BLM, Forest Service, Fire teams) were fired by the Federal goverment to supposedly cut big government and save money. That was a disastrous strategy as evidenced by the unprecedented 2026 Fire Season in the West and elsewhere.
We personally know BLM fire management personnel that were fired then hired back late in the fire season on an expensive temporary basis due to Big Box fire management (not the preferred best practice). Ranchers do not like the Big Box approach as it relies on "back burns” of huge swathes of their private land in an attempt to make a large Box around the fire. This is one example of the funding cut debacle. There was not enough money left after the huge government funding cuts to implement the needed prescribed burns and best practices. Due to the lack of funding to fight the fires with the best practices that are thoroughly proven, the United States is burning. I will not even go into the stupidity of ignoring that Climate Change is scientifically proven and that “boots on the ground” observations regularly prove that reality.
A few of the unpleasant Facts related to the Forest Service Roadless Rule Rescission are:
•Discretionary Funding: The administration's budget requests have sought dramatic reductions—including a proposed 44% cut to operations and up to a 75% overall reduction in discretionary budget allocations according to analyses like those from Taxpayers for Common Sense.
•Research Elimination: The proposals completely eliminate funding for the Forest and Rangeland Research accounts, closing dozens of research stations nationwide.
•Shifting Priorities: While operations, research, and non-fire programs face deep reductions, the budget requests significantly boost funding targeted for commercial timber sales and logging programs.
With regards to the ” Shifting Priorities” mentioned above - there are no studies that have determined the results on the forests and the potential of increased human caused fires which will follow from such a sudden shift to un-hindered large scale commercial logging. In addition, it appears that the commercial logging will have very few regulations to protect streams, fish, wildlife etc. What will be the restraints on the chosen forests, road locations and the environmental impact? What will be the regulations on the corporations? Please refer me to studies and enforceable regulations that indicate our current Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment , Mr. Michael Boren, and the rest of the administration have any plans for the actual long term financial well-being of the country , our safety, and the environmental impacts of this decision.
Again to clarify, my family and I strongly OPPOSE the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule and will vote accordingly.