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.
“roadless forests do things no other landscape can do”
“help keep ecosystems resilient”
“long-term health of the land”
The comment
This is regarding the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule and urge the Forest Service to keep these protections in place.
I have dedicated my life to working on behalf of lands, waters, and wildlife wherever I have lived. I currently live in Marin, California and work alongside our national park partners at the Point Reyes National Seashore to care for these lands on behalf of ecosystem and human health. This work (and my work as an educator for many years) has taught me that roadless forests do things no other landscape can do. They shelter wildlife that needs unbroken habitat, they filter and store the water that communities downstream depend on, and they help keep ecosystems resilient. These benefits are essential to human health, not just amenities.
If we want to preserve life on this planet, we need to listen to what wildlife, water, and forests are telling us. Rolling back protections for nearly 45 million acres puts short-term access ahead of the long-term health of the land and ignores the interests of future generations, who will inherit whatever we leave intact.
I urge the agency to retain the Roadless Rule, or at minimum to analyze and adopt an alternative that keeps meaningful protections for these areas.
Thank you for considering my comment.
Heather Clapp, Bolinas, CA