Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted 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.
Subject: Public Comment: Oppose the Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001)
Dear Secretary Rollins and U.S. Forest Service Officials,
I am writing as a local resident living near the Colville National Forest in Washington State to express my strong opposition to the proposal to rescind or weaken the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to keep these vital protections completely intact.
The Colville National Forest already has over 4,000 miles of existing roads. This extensive road network already provides ample motorized access for recreation, resource management, and community needs. The Forest Service already faces a massive multi-billion dollar backlog in road maintenance; adding more miles of roads to manage is fiscally irresponsible.
The inventoried roadless areas across the Colville National Forest are irreplaceable. They serve three critical functions that roads would impact:
• Wildlife and Habitat: These unbroken forest tracts are important migration corridors and sanctuaries for wildlife.
• Water Quality: Our local roadless watersheds act as natural filtration systems, ensuring clean, high-quality drinking water for our communities. Road construction is known to choke mountain streams with sediment and degrade water systems.
• Protection of Old Growth: These protected spaces shelter our remaining old-growth forests. These ancient ecosystems are deeply cherished by locals.
•
Opening these last wild spaces to commercial logging, mining, and road-building would also fundamentally elevate human-caused wildfire risks, as statistical data shows wildfires are significantly more likely to ignite near road corridors.
Please preserve the integrity of northeast Washington's public lands. Do not strip protections from the roadless areas that keep the Colville National Forest healthy, wild, and resilient.
Sincerely,
Sam Joseph
Spokane WA