Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 14, 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 am in opposition to the repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. It should be retained for many reasons, including forest health. I am a retired physician and a life-long resident of Washington State, with more than 60 years of recreating in the Cascade mountain range, and beyond. I can attest to the values of keeping roadless areas protected, for both recreation and for improving forest health. In our area (Chelan County) we currently have a huge number of non-functional forest roads, dating back to the era when timber interests were vigorously building roads for industrial logging. These roads, built for out-dated concepts of timber extraction, are often a liability, as they were otherwise unplanned and currently unsupervised. Many of these existing roads have since deteriorated to the point where in many cases they are un-usable, even to hikers as well as equestrians, and mountain- and motor-bikers. They require extensive work to keep the sun-seeking shrubbery from overgrowing the tread, and to keep washouts from occurring during rain and snow events. This maintenance is generally not done, unless a wildfire emergency (such as the Little Giant Fire) requires emergent and dangerous work, followed by expensive rehabilitation to avoid mudflows.
Rather than opening current roadless areas up to more roads built willy-nilly and solely for timber extraction, it would make much more sense to focus on an intelligent system of using and maintaining our existing National Forest roads, designing a system which makes sense for communities and stakeholders. Wildfire mitigation efforts, using our many existing roads, can include forest health measures which leave large-diameter Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees intact, still harvesting small-diameter and flammable trees for modern products such as mass timber. Using and maintaining our existing roads can also enhance recreation, dispersing our use away from relying solely on recently over-used areas, such as the Enchantments.
Our currently road-free areas are a precious source of biodiversity, water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities for us and for the future. They deserve to retain their current protected status.
Thank you for considering our Comments.