Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-337882

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Posted September 8, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. This comment stands for 183 submissions in its group. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored as the letter — The shared letter of a family, scored once for everyone who sent it.

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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover”
    • “give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need”
    • “fragment that habitat”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “protect clean drinking water”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “functioning ecosystems”
    • “protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “store carbon”

The comment

I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.

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