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.
Dear Secretary:
For someone who has spent enough time outdoors to know what happens after road access opens in an area, the 2001 Rule reads as a hard-won, practically-grounded protection — not a regulatory formality.
Regarding the 09186 - Shelp Lake in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin:
New road construction, reconstruction, and associated development fragment habitat, introduce disturbance, and eliminate roadless character.
Roadless areas function as intact reference landscapes. Roadless areas retain levels of ecological integrity that roaded landscapes have lost. Watersheds with the highest ecological integrity scores tend to have high proportions of roadless or wilderness area (over 50 percent); watersheds with the lowest integrity tend to have low proportions of roadless area and high proportions of moderate-density roads (USDA Forest Service 2000; Talty et al. 2020). — USDA Forest Service, 2000 (https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless/roadless-feis-volume1.pdf); Talty et al., 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Belote, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288)
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the 09186 - Shelp Lake, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary.
Rescission of this rule would be a major step back for our country. It is very important that we protect the last of these natural areas that we have left.
Stand by the Rule.
Faithfully,
CommentID: RLC-20261007-VTYAA6