Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 7, 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.
“protect our heritage and way of life in the lands and waters that are protected from roads”
“kept in tact for future generations of people and animals”
“conservation rule to remain”
The comment
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I'm writing today to express the absolute importance of keeping the roadless rule in place in Montana. There are numerous reasons for this conservation rule to remain and all of them are essential. I have trouble listing only a few, but if I must, I will emphasize wildlife habitat; protection of migration corridors & game habitat; and the recreation economy. As a livelong outdoor enthusiast, conservationist & wildlife lover, nothing is more important to me than preserving Montana's ability to recreate, hunt, fish, and otherwise protect our heritage and way of life in the lands and waters that are protected from roads as outlined in the roadless rule. If we lose any more of those protected areas, we will be in serious jeopardy: habitat loss, loss of Montana recreation jobs, and fragmented corridors for games speciesall these areas in my backyard must be kept in tact for future generations of people and animals.
I have sent these comments via postcard. In case the postcard failed to deliver, I am also sending these comments digitally for the record.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Larissa Berry
Montana