Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted August 21, 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.
Attention: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66 – Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For nearly a quarter-century, this highly successful policy has protected roughly 45 million acres of intact, wild National Forest System lands from the long-term damages of road construction and commercial timber harvesting. Stripping away these protections in favor of localized planning would severely compromise our nation's biodiversity, watersheds, climate resilience, and outdoor recreation economies.
The value of these spaces is deeply personal to me. I vividly remember hiking in Michigan's Hiawatha National Forest, which stands out as the very first place where I experienced true wilderness. It was a rare, invaluable sanctuary where we could not hear any human sounds—no distant traffic, no planes overhead, and no crowds. All we could hear was the natural world around us. This profound sense of quiet and solitude is only possible because of the large, unfragmented landscapes protected by the Roadless Rule.
The justification that repealing the rule will mitigate wildfire risk is scientifically contradictory. While the Forest Service claims that removing the rule provides flexibility for mechanical thinning, historical data and recent forestry research show that building new roads actually introduces a much greater threat. Roads dramatically expand human access, and studies confirm that a vast majority of wildfires are human-caused and ignite close to roads. Paving into these remote areas will increase, rather than decrease, the frequency of devastating fires.
Second, these 45 million acres serve as the literal headwaters for our nation. Roadless areas protect pristine streams that supply clean, unfiltered drinking water to tens of millions of Americans. Paving roads and introducing heavy industrial logging equipment into these ecosystems will inevitably trigger severe soil erosion, introduce harmful sediment into waterways, and permanently degrade water quality for downstream communities.
Furthermore, these intact backcountry areas represent the ecological backbone of our public lands. They safeguard irreplaceable old-growth forests that act as critical carbon sinks, helping mitigate the root causes of the climate crisis. They also offer continuous, unfragmented habitats for wildlife species that cannot survive in fractured landscapes.
Instead of dismantling a highly effective, decades-old framework, the USDA should maintain and strengthen the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep vital wild spaces like the Hiawatha National Forest completely intact for future generations.
Sincerely and with hope for a better future,
Sara S.
Haslett, MI