Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-387664

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 1/24Posted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. This comment stands for 9 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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protects ecologically sensitive landscapes”
- “wildlife populations and habitat”
- “imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival”
Water Quality Quantity
- “degrading clean water supplies”
- “these lands provide clean water”
Public Opinion Support
- “American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule”
- “77% of voters support conserving roadless lands”
- “over half a million Americans responded... with comments voicing strong opposition”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “limiting outdoor recreation opportunities”
- “support numerous recreational activities”

The comment

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep intact the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”), which protects nearly 45 million acres of our nation's forests and grasslands. Prior to the rule's implementation in 2001, industrial logging and accompanying roadbuilding disrupted and destroyed 3.2 million acres of fragile habitat annually while also degrading clean water supplies and limiting outdoor recreation opportunities. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected ecologically sensitive landscapes, wildlife populations and habitat, and communities dependent upon their services. The rule protects countless wild animals, including imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival. Additionally, these lands provide clean water and support numerous recreational activities that sustain local jobs and economies. The rule allows for flexibility in resource management, with exceptions for vegetation management and road construction projects in the interest of public health and safety. The American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule; recent bipartisan polling shows that 77% of voters support conserving roadless lands. Indeed, the rule was created with input from over 1.6 million comments and, in September, over half a million Americans responded to the U.S. Forest Service's notice of intent to repeal the Roadless Rule with comments voicing strong opposition. We have made our opinion clear time and time again–our public lands should remain public, not be degraded for the interests of private industry. I strongly urge the U.S. Forest Service not to repeal the Roadless Rule, as keeping the rule intact will protect our shared forestlands for generations to come. L T N87W15137 Rozanne, WI 53051 Sincerely, Ms. L T