Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-326136

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 39 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Carries the letter's score — A copy of a family's letter; it holds the score and answerability level of the letter it sent.

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. This rating is the one its shared letter earned.

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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling”
    • “changing the primitive backcountry character”
    • “I love to walk in the forests”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “fragmenting habitat”
    • “keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging”
    • “Michigan's last large roadless forests”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule”
    • “ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal”
    • “keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place”

The comment

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). I spend considerable time in Michigan's woods and trail systems, and notice a significant advantage to those in designated roadless areas. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Thank you for accepting my input S B, Williamston Michigan

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