Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-252916

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 22, 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 eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The 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 decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The 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 shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect our environment, especially the wilderness areas”
- “critical for biodiversity conservation”
- “support so many diverse species”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water protection”
- “provide clean drinking water for many people”
- “provide water for over 48 million people”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “climate resilience”
- “moving toward more wind and solar”
- “respect the land and air and the water”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I live, hike and love the mountains”
- “keep it beautiful for the next generations”
- “pristine wilderness areas”

What it names

Works cited: DellaSala et al. 2011

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination08/22/2026 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: 2001 ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE To the U.S. Forest Service, I strongly oppose any efforts to rescind, weaken or change ANY part of the 2001 ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE. There are several reasons for my strong opposition. 1.We only have one planet and need to do what we can to protect our environment, especially the wilderness areas, which support so many diverse species. The interconnectedness of these plants and animals is critical to our own survival. Our public lands and all of their protections were put in place to acknowledge this fact. We must be the voice of the plant and animal kingdom, as they cannot speak for themselves. The Science is clear: Over two decades of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that roadless areas are critical for biodiversity conservation, wildfire safety, clean water protection, and climate resilience. (1) 2.We do not need to build roads of drill in these areas or exploit them for human greed and gain. We can and should be moving toward more wind and solar for our electric needs. We are living on stolen land and the very LEAST we can do is to respect the land and air and the water. Without these, humans will cease to exist. 3.These pristine wilderness areas provide clean drinking water for many people, farms that grow our food and all living things across the country, in fact they provide water for over 48 million people! This proposal to undo protections is undermining our entire civilization. It is short sighted. Governmental parties and administrations change on a regular basis, but our rules protecting our public lands must remain constant and even strengthen as we learn more. (2) (3) I live, hike and love the mountains of Western North Carolina one of the most beautiful and diverse areas in the country. You have the power to help keep it beautiful for the next generations to come. Let your name be on the HERO list, not the short-sighted list. Good Stewardship of what we have been given requires that we protect the place we call home. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment, Beatriz Coll, Resident of Asheville, NC References: 1. Wildlife Species in Roadless Areas Dietz, Barnett, Belote & Aplet (2021) 2. Conservation Science and Practice McKinley J. Talty, Kelly Mott Lacroix, Gregory H. Aplet, R. Travis Belote 2020 3. Roadless Areas and Clean Water DellaSala (2011) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation