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.
“disregards resolutions from numerous Tribal Nations”
“respect indigenous sovereignty”
“Federal land management must respect indigenous sovereignty”
The comment
Subject: Public Comment: Strong Opposition to the Proposed Repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Dear Secretary of Agriculture and Chief of the U.S. Forest Service,
I am writing to submit my formal opposition to the proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a Massachusetts resident who frequently hikes the rugged, intact trails of the Berkshires, I know firsthand how vital undisturbed forest lands are to our environment, wellness, and local economy.
In a densely populated region like New England, our remaining wild spaces are already rare and highly fragmented. Allowing road construction and industrial exploitation in our nation's remaining roadless areas is an irreversible mistake. I urge you to maintain the current rule based on the following evidence:
• Protecting Rare Eastern Refugia: Unlike the vast public lands of the American West, intact forest ecosystems in the Northeast are scarce. The Roadless Rule protects critical, contiguous blocks of mature forest that act as essential climate refugia. These unfragmented habitats allow regional wildlife—from native brook trout to migratory birds—to adapt to a changing climate. Industrializing these areas destroys corridors they cannot afford to lose. Please.
• Escalating Wildfire Vulnerability: The premise that road building mitigates wildfires contradicts established fire science. Forest Service data demonstrates that timber roads actually increase human-caused wildfire ignitions and alter forest microclimates, making them more combustible. As someone who treasures the peace and safety of hiking trails country wide, I object to policies that introduce unnecessary fire risks into pristine public lands.
• Securing Clean Drinking Water: Roadless areas safeguard the headwaters of watersheds supplying clean drinking water to over 60 million Americans. According to hydrological research, road construction triggers severe soil erosion and sedimentation. In New England, preserving forested watersheds is our most cost-effective tool for protecting municipal water quality and avoiding multi-million-dollar water treatment upgrades.
• Fiscally Destructive Policy: The U.S. Forest Service currently faces an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion backlog in maintaining its existing network of over 370,000 miles of roads. Subsidizing new road construction for private commercial interests while failing to maintain existing infrastructure is a gross misuse of taxpayer resources.
• Ignoring the Public and Tribal Nations: Past public comment periods regarding the Roadless Rule have yielded an unprecedented 99% consensus from millions of Americans demanding these lands remain protected. Furthermore, this rollback disregards resolutions from numerous Tribal Nations. Federal land management must respect indigenous sovereignty and the overwhelming public desire to preserve our shared natural heritage.
The 2001 Roadless Rule is an incredibly successful, cost-effective conservation policy. For the future of our forests, our climate, and the millions of Americans who find solace in places like the Berkshires, Yosemite, Bryce Canyon, and Sequoia (all places I hike and love as well), I strongly urge the USDA to reject commercial rollbacks and keep the Roadless Rule fully intact.
Thank you for your time and your review of this evidence.
Sincerely,
Lilian Correa,
Northborough, MA 01532