Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 31, 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 Wayne, PA 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 and camping. Roadless is more wild and therefore more natural. Keep the roadless rule intact.
Ten Lakes Basin is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Ten Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area in Kootenai National Forest. It's such a beautiful area. Unspoiled and worth the effort to get there.
I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. The ForestbService is already underfunded and it's beginning to show in the National Parks. Adding more to manage is foolish.
I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Habitat is fragile, plants, animals, watersheds need to remain undesturbed.
I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Glyophosphate is being used to manage plant growth. Only one example of how roads impact watersheds.
I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. Timber is important, but it ruins the land for decades. We don't need more timbering land.
I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. Administration priorities should not be dictating common sense conservation policy.
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA account for the long-term cost of maintaining, reconstructing, and eventually decommissioning additional roads?
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.