Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 28, 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.
“concerned about increased timber development pressure”
“Roadless lands will be at greater risk to being logged”
“profit-seeking entities that want to log and mine national lands”
“resource extraction for profit”
What it names
Roadless areas
Wild River
The comment
I live in Bellingham, Washington and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, camping, wildlife watching, living in or near a National Forest community, and I am a retired fish biologist from the U.S. Forest Service. Undeveloped, roadless areas are so important for wildlife, watersheds, and humans that seek peace and respite from our busy world and the overabundant cruelty, fraud, and constitutional violations that have come from this current administration.
Baker Lake Trail is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Mount Baker Noisy - Diobsud Inventoried Roadless Area in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Baker Lake is a beautiful area that supports many fish species, has a wild river upstream of the lake, and has old forests with trails winding through them. It is a great place to go swimming during hot days, and hiking any time.
I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. Failing roads contribute sediment to streams and become fish passage barriers. The money that would be spent on new roads and their maintenance should be spent on habitat restoration, ecological research, trails, and maintenance for existing roads to prevent problems.
I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Habitat fragmentation is a huge problem that limits wildlife populations because of decreased access to food and shelter, decreased genetic variability, and increased interface with humans. Many of our wildlife populations are currently struggling and their sustainability is challenged. Some have already winked out, or are on their way to extinction (such as the northern spotted owl, bull trout, and mountain caribou).
I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. New roads can often create fish barriers, cause sediment contribution to streams and higher water temperatures, cause invasive plant introductions, and create pollution and temperature problems during construction; aquatic habitat and fish populations require intact riparian buffer zones and clean, cold water.
Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. New roads will make it much harder to find escape from civilization, which is one of the main reasons people love to recreate in national forests.
I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. The more roads, the more chance for human caused wildfires. The Roadless Rule already contains exceptions that allow road construction to protect public health and safety.
I am concerned about increased timber development pressure in currently roadless areas. Roadless lands will be at greater risk to being logged if the recission occurs. This administration has become known for its callous disinterest in the conservation of natural areas in lieu of resource extraction for profit. The Forest Service needs to hold onto its Roadless lands in the face of this, not log more.
I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. Protection for these lands should not depend entirely upon shifting administrative priorities.
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? I believe the push to rescind this rule is coming from profit-seeking entities that want to log and mine national lands. This needs to be addressed truthfully by the USDA.
For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Wendy Cole