Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-276831

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 4/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 19 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored with own additions — A family member whose own text beyond the shared letter was scored and combined with the letter's score.

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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

What it names

Law cited
90 FR 42179

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

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail user (hiking, biking and trail running) and volunteer (trail maintenance), and as a member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. Roadless area use and benefits are equally important compared to other natural resource uses, and any action that further opens the door to resource extraction from these areas would be short-sighted and shameful. The Roadless Area rule as-is ensures adequate balance of resources and is one of the few areas where U.S. rulemaking remains forward-looking. It is important to maintain the protections provided by the existing verbiage in the Roadless Area Rule. Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon. The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless