Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted August 21, 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.
A decision ro rescind the roadless rule should come with a large appropriation or it is bogus. We have a roadless area next to our Montana ranch. Building roads into kt or logging it would require millions in road construction costs, because it is landlocked by private land, as is a lot of the checkerboard land. Our forest road experienced a washout kf bridles in 1971. They never replaced the bridles, but the county. Finally replaced two of the four bridges to provide residential access…in 2021(50 years later). Our local national forest (Kootenai NF) sold all its road maintenance and road building equipment in the seventies..so:
Who is going to build and maintain new roads into marginal and landlocked forest services lands. Counties are strapped for funds. Even if logging companies build roads, no public entity has the funds to maintain them. Our primary access from the south is the Vermillion River Road. It hasn’t seen a grader in at least en years and is becoming a four wheel drive road.. it is a primary access to two Forest Service campgrounds.
Following last years epic windstorms on the Kootenai miles of roads were littered with blowdown. Many of those roads also habpve washouts. No one has the funds to open those roads…private folks are trying to cut them out.
Please try to mange your exisiting road system better before you contemplate new roads.
Dr Dan Green
Forest Economist