Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 27, 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.
I am a citizen of Ohio which is a state less affected by this rule, but I do travel a lot throughout this country. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the Roadless Rule. There are many reasons this is a bad idea. I see on the maps that many areas of the Tongass National Forest and Chugach and Chichagof regions would be affected in Alaska. Having just had the privilege to travel there in June, I am familiar with those beautiful and pristine areas. The Americans who live in these regions are part of the land, many descending from the indigenous peoples that have been there for centuries. While being "modern" Americans, they hunt, use plants medicinally in ways most of us in the midwest do not. This is culturally sacred land to them and to many of us who have visited. The areas around Icy Strait points and College Fiord would certainly be damaged by unneccessary roads, roads that increase fire danger, harm native plants and wildlife and the drinking water of the people there and in surrounding regions. Roads increase sediment which interupts the growth and survival of plants and animals in and near these water sources.
"While natural resources have economic value, cultural resources have social value because communities use them to form their identities today. Cultural resources are inherently valuable to diverse groups of people who have a living connection to the places, people, and events of the past. — National Park Service, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, 2025 (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/preservation-matters-disasters-cultural-resources-and-wildland-fire.htm)"
"Sediment production from road surfaces was measured on gravel-surfaced forest roads. Road surface erosion rates were found to be substantially elevated compared to undisturbed forest conditions, with sediment production directly related to traffic levels, road surface material, and road gradient. — Reid, L.M., 1984 · Water Resources Research (https://doi.org/10.1029/WR020i011p01753)"
Reviewing the harm that unnecessary roads could do to the water supply alone should be enough to put the brakes on this measure! We already have the Colorado River and Lake Mead at record lows endangering the water supplies of millions of people. These currently protected roadless areas provide water supplies for 124 million Americans.
"The US National Forests are the headwaters of many of our great rivers and one of the largest sources of municipal water supply in the nation, serving over 60 million people in 3,400 communities in 33 states. Roads are a major cause of water pollution. Because it provides significant protection for upper watersheds, the Roadless Rule is vital for maintaining clean drinking water for communities across the country. — Earthjustice and 350+ co-signing organizations, 2025 (https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/roadless-rule-ngo-sign-on-letter-submitted-9_19_2025.pdf)"
Our citizens need this water and once the damage to the surrounding watersheds and ecosystems is done, it can not be reversed to pre-damage levels. When does the welfare of Americans finally outweigh the needs of industry in this country?? I say the time is now.
Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Amy Taylor