Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-348813

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 16 submissions in its group. 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “vital wildlife habitat”
- “undisturbed core wildlife habitats”
- “fragment habitat”
- “introduce invasive species”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean air and water”
- “health and resilience of our watersheds”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “diverse recreation opportunities”
- “backcountry across U.S. national forests”
Governance Policy Process
- “extend this comment period to at least 90 days”
- “hold hearings across the U.S.”
- “public can fully weigh in”

The comment

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Further, the science is clear that undisturbed core wildlife habitats, such as those maintained by our Forest Service nventoried and designated roadless areas, are vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and contribute to the health and resilience of our watersheds. I support maintaining and strengthening this Rule, not weakening or abandoning it as seems to be the unfortunate and predetermined goal of this regressive rulemaking. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in on this far-reaching rule revision. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Matthew Clark Tucson, AZ 85704 safepassages@gmail.com