Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted 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.
“infrastructure or extractive uses do not overwhelm”
“balance rather than dominance in future resource development”
The comment
I write to oppose any attempt to rescind the Roadless Rule and any attempt to build new roads or reduce protections in Roadless Areas of the National Forest System. Although I live in Montana, Roadless Areas should be protected in every western state.
I urge all decisions makers as follows:
Actively maintain the undeveloped, backcountry character of Roadless Areas, recognizing that their value is rooted in a sense of remoteness, quietude, and connection to nature.
Prioritize high-quality trail access and recreation experiences that sustain local economies and provide meaningful, low-impact outdoor opportunities.
Apply the principles of Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation to ensure any future projects avoid impacts to existing trails where possible, minimize disruption where avoidance is not feasible, and fully mitigate any unavoidable impacts.
Ensure balance rather than dominance in future resource development, so that infrastructure or extractive uses do not overwhelm the recreational and ecological values that define these landscapes.
The wild, remote backcountry character of Roadless Areas are what make Montana unique and are important to the culture of the West. More than that, it’s how mountain bikers get a “Wilderness” experience on a bike.
Sincerely,
Ryan Heuwinkel
Missoula, MT 59801
rth009@msn.com