Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 27, 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 live in Spokane, WA and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, trail volunteering, camping, wildlife watching, living in or near a National Forest community, and operating or working for a business connected to public lands. Roadless places are incredibly important to all of us- the balance of nature is at stake. Wildlands are not just for our entertainment.
Sullivan Lake is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Grass Top Inventoried Roadless Area in Colville National Forest. Wild places are all special!
I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Wildlife needs more space to roam safely and freely.
I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. I'm not sure why I need to expound on this- clean water is important for the entire ecosystem, us included.
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs?
For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.