Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 12, 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.
We appreciate that roadless areas are some of the last, best places on our public lands in Washington State that are free from any industrial development. Also, we are learning this means country like the Liberty Bell in Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Abercrombie-Hooknose in Colville National Forest, and the Dark Divide in Gifford Pinchot National Forest are absolutely beautiful places to visit.
We (my family and I, four taxpaying and voting adults) have lived on the North Olympic Peninsula for the last 20 years, so appreciate that roadless areas provide the wildland connectivity for wide-ranging wildlife such as lynx, wolverine, black bear and elk. We appreciate that much of the wildlife restoration efforts being made are protected by these areas and all of that depends on habitat free from human development.
We know there are already more roads on national forests than can be affordably maintained. Over the years we have watched as the forest service in Montana closed hundreds, then thousands of miles of roads. We understand the Forest Service still has some 380,000 miles of roads with a growing maintenance backlog. Why would you want to allow more road development?
We also understand the current roadless rule allows restoration thinning and prescribed burning in the roadless areas, but that it limits commercial timber harvest in steep backcountry terrain. We think there is actually constraint from the topography and economic cost of road development in such rugged areas.
We are aware that roads fragment and degrade wildlife habitat, and they dump sediment into fish habitat and spawning beds each year. Those cold, clear rushing streams not only spawn fish, but also provide beautifully clean water for local downstream communities and ranching operations.
We understand in Washington State, about 85% of fires are caused by people each year and the roads act as pathways for human fire ignitions, not the regulations or thunderstorms. We think we need our wild country way more than we need new forest roads and the mining of our remaining patches of forest.
Please keep our roadless areas that also support Indigenous cultural and subsistence practices and some of the best backcountry recreation available in the state. Our rural economies are supported by the hunting, fishing, paddling, hiking, backpacking, off road riding and bird and botany watchers that abound.
Thank you!
Mike & Dan Brant and Dan & Lys Burden