Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 7, 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.
“our forests provide clean water for drinking & municipal uses”
“The roadless rule protects miles of rivers and streams”
The comment
My name is Elliott Moffett & I’m a member of the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), I’ve lived on and near the Nez Perce Indian Reservation (NPIR) most of my life. I am also member and cofounder of the organization called the Heart of the Monster Society, which organized to give voice to marginalized communities like Indigenous Peoples. HoftheMS formed to represent Indigenous, Tribal & community members who want to live in sacred relationships with our communities & Mother Earth. We oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule, as we are in a sacred relationship with Mother Earth. The reasons we are against this federal action are because lack of consultation with tribal peoples, we do not need more roads in our forests. This action denies climate warming because it will open more timbered areas to more logging, more road construction & reconstruction, threatening old growth stands, which open forests to climate, less shade of lands & waters. It will open more species some ESA species to extermination. Local. Control means national policies like those considering Indigenous rights will be ignored, rejected, & at the very least marginalized. More extractive industries will have access to valuable species, like mining for minerals threatening fisheries and habitats. The lands of national forests are already harmed by past actions. Millions of dollars are spent trying to “undo” years of gold mining, which mining companies are less apt to restore. The NPT ancestral territories include multiple national forests, for which the tribe and its members must take care to use and includes managing. Prior to Euro Americans coming to this country, Nimiipuu-NPT people have taken care managed territories including forested areas for over 16,000 years, long before the development of the US, the State & FS. I associate these comments with environmental concerns as expressed by such organizations as Friends of the Clearwater(FOC). The Indigenous Peoples manage to serve the most for the greatest value, like our forests provide clean water for drinking & municipal uses. There is enough and I claim too much logging as is, as a commuter of Idaho roads in the forests & along the streams and rivers, I can attest to the number of logging trucks on the roads where we must compete with speeding logging trucks trying to cut down and move logs to market. Wildfires still occur even with all of the logging. More logging more roads will not reduce numbers and severity of wildfires, unless the goal is to cut all trees; under the no trees, no fires theory. The number of salvage timber sales has grown with more fires, interesting. I object to the reason to rescind the roadless rule is to return to more local decision making. Guess what they’ll do: more logging, more mining and with the country going crazy with data centers more mining to get rich quick, which is foundation of Idaho’s heritage. They’ve logged almost all private and State lands and so must rely on logging national forests. Local decision making has led to the forest service denying its trust responsibilities to tribes and their members. Treaty rights were the basis of suing the FS, as it failed to exercise its trust duties to help protect treaty rights. As stated the tribe and its members exercise inherent rights, and where the tribe is recognized as fisheries commanders, we must also be treated as co- land managers. These are ancestral territories which help in cultural survival which supports tribal sovereignty. We work with the tribe as an organization for the ecological health of inherent territories. We look for greater diversity in ecosystems, which are provided in multiple use management which is not served by the practice of timber plantations. Local decision making has ignored and opposed for generations tribal sovereignty and jurisdictional prerogatives. The roadless rule protects miles of rivers and streams. The ForestService has responsibility to exercise trust responsibilities to tribes and its members and has not convinced us that federal objectives would be better served by having more roads, we see more chances to extract “resources” from already depleted lands from past roaded areas. For these reasons, on behalf of Indigenous organization, Heart of the Monster Society, opposes rescission of the roadless rule.