Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 15, 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 oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Republic, WA where there are several Inventoried Roadless Areas within an hour of my house. These lands are very important to me, as an avid hiker, camper, and angler, I use our public lands on a weekly basis. Specifically, the Bald Snow, Thirteenmile, Cougar, and Clackamas Mountain Roadless Areas are among my favorite places to recreate on the Colville National Forest. I ski, hunt, and hike in these areas regularly, and allowing road construction or commercial logging in these areas would negatively impact the value these wild areas bring to my community. Building roads would increase the fire risk since does are four times more likely to start near a road than in a Roadless forest. Increased threat of fire would negatively impact drinking water, wildlife habitat, and indigenous cultural values and sources of traditional food, fibers, and medicine.
For the reasons listed above, rescinding fully or partially the Roadless rule would be a mistake that would not serve the greatest good, nor the future generations we should be stewarding these lands for. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.