Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 6, 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.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Conservation Rule. I encourage Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.
As a young adult, I feel it is my responsibility to support the preservation of wild backcountry areas for future generations. My favorite memories from growing up in Central Kentucky are the countless backcountry camping trips my friends & I would take to the Daniel Boone National Forest. My recent move to Western Montana has only strengthened my love for these wild forestlands. I hold these dear forests close to my heart and hope to share these special places with my nieces, nephews, and even future children. Rolling back the Roadless Rule would only destroy this opportunity for generations to come. Aside from the value that wild areas provide to humans, we must also consider the intrinsic value of the land in and of itself, and treat it as such.
Rescission of the Roadless Rule will open currently protected areas to logging, road construction, oil and gas drilling, and numerous other industrial activities. It has been proven by numerous long-term scientific research studies (that can be found within the following embedded links) that logging poses detrimental threats to our environment as a whole. According to the USFS webpage, “National forests are the single most important water resource in the U.S.” Roads are a major contributor to water pollution, so it is imperative that we keep the Roadless Rule in order to protect our municipal water. Logging also increases wildfire risk, destroys wildlife habitat, threatens biodiversity, degrades soil, and accelerates climate change.
As stated on the United States Forest Service (USFS) webpage, the USFS’s mission is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” (1). The rescission of this rule directly contradicts the mission statement as proven by the aforementioned resources.
The Roadless Rule protects irreplaceable landscapes. Keep wild places wild. I urge you to adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Madelyn Manis
Montana