Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 16, 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.
To Whom It May Concern:
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule needs to remain in place and I am opposed to it being rescinded. It does appear that some modifications to correct mapping errors would be a useful effort.
I have lived in the Wenatchee-Okanogan National Forest District for 33 years and have experienced the benefits of roadless areas. I have also used USFS roads for access to trailheads or for camping and know that the Forest Service does not have the funds to keep them properly maintained. The pressures to put in more roads for the benefit of the extraction industry is immense, I'm sure, but short sighted.
We need to preserve as much clean water and soil as we can. Fires are a main component of our reality now, and allowing for more vehicles in the National Forest will only increase the likelihood of a fire. Studies have shown that the likelihood of a fire starting by vehicles (95% of fires are started withing 1/2 mile of roads).
The impetus for this proposal needs to be transparent and the details subject to more public hearings.
I live in an area that has been greatly impacted by fires and the recreational economy has been hurt significantly, not to mention the health risks and fear that we have all experienced due to fires. The Forest Service does not have the budget to even maintain the roads that is currently has,so why add more burden to the system?
The proposal to eliminate the RACR is ill researched, has short sighted goals and does not reflect the views of the people that live and work with and in the National Forest.
Thank you,
Gina Monteverde
Winthrop, WA