Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-316639

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the commenter resides in the Adirondack Park and that the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule would indirectly impact the ecological integrity of the Adirondack Mountains by weakening protections in the Green Mountain, Finger Lakes, White Mountain, and Allegheny National Forests.

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
    • “ecological integrity of the Adirondack Mountains”
    • “regional network of wildlife habitat”
    • “protecting intact forest landscapes”
    • “jeopardize the ecological integrity of national forests”
  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “open nearly 45 million acres... to new road construction, commercial logging, and mineral extraction”
    • “commercial logging, mining, and livestock grazing belong on private lands”
    • “not on public lands”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “support migratory species and ecological processes”
    • “regional network of wildlife habitat”
    • “undermine that regional connectivity”

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Legal

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express strong opposition to a proposal that would open nearly 45 million acres of national forest lands to new road construction, commercial logging, and mineral extraction. I am talking about the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001-223869). I know that this proposal does not directly affect the Adirondack Park, where I live, but it affects it indirectly. The ecological integrity of the Adirondack Mountains is connected to the health of nearby national forests such as the Green Mountain, Finger Lakes, White Mountain, and Allegheny National Forests. These forests contribute to a broader regional network of wildlife habitat and climate-resilient landscapes that support migratory species and ecological processes extending into the Adirondacks. Weakening protections in these forests would undermine that regional connectivity, having an indirect, but deleterious, impact on the Adirondack Mountains, where I grew up and still live. I feel strongly that commercial logging, mining, and livestock grazing belong on private lands, not on public lands. The 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the most effective tools for protecting intact forest landscapes. Weakening it would undermine decades of conservation progress and jeopardize the ecological integrity of national forests across the country. I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and reject this proposal. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Ellen Jones 39 Country Club Lane, Lake Placid, NY 12946

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