Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted 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.
Secretary Rollins,
I am writing to express my sincere opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically concerning its protections for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin. I strongly urge the agency to select the "No Action Alternative" in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which would maintain the current 2001 Roadless Rule protections intact.
Since childhood, I've looked forward to visits and vacations in northern Wisconsin. As someone who continues to spend invaluable time in Wisconsin's Northwoods, I have experienced firsthand the profound peace, beauty, and ecological necessity of these undisturbed wildlands. Protecting these remaining roadless areas is vital for our environment, our local heritage, and our outdoor economy. The Northwoods of Wisconsin are a premier destination for hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts. Pristine, unfragmented habitats are essential for supporting robust populations of white-tailed deer, black bear, ruffed grouse, and the cold-water trout streams that northern Wisconsin is famous for. According to data from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), outdoor recreation, hunting, and fishing contribute billions of dollars annually to our state's economy, directly supporting thousands of jobs in rural communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule and opening these sanctuaries to industrial logging and road construction will fragment critical habitats, degrade water quality through soil erosion, and ultimately threaten the outdoor tourism that sustains local Northwoods businesses. Furthermore, the argument that adding more roads will mitigate wildfire risk contradicts the reality of wildfire patterns in our state. According to Wisconsin DNR statistics, the vast majority of wildfires in Wisconsin—over 90%—are caused by human activity, such as debris burning, equipment use, and campfires. Building new roads into previously inaccessible portions of our national forests directly invites increased human traffic, motorized vehicles, and remote activity. By providing greater vehicular access to deep forest areas, we inherently increase the incidence and risk of human-caused wildfires in the exact places that are most difficult to suppress.
Finally, keeping our forests intact is one of our most effective, cost-efficient defenses against climate change. The dense, mature trees and undisturbed soils of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest act as massive carbon sinks, absorbing greenhouse gases and significantly improving regional climate and air quality. Fragmenting these forests disrupts their natural resilience, making them more vulnerable to invasive species, pests, and disease, which degrades their ability to regulate our climate.
Wisconsin's wild roadless acres are a finite and irreplaceable treasure. For the sake of our local economies, our safety from human-caused fires, and the preservation of the Northwoods for future generations, I urge you to select the No Action Alternative and maintain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Thank you for consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Amy Elliott