Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-507052

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 29, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 401 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “Killing wildlife, for profit”
- “protects some of the wildest forests we have left”
- “protect critical wildlife habitat”
- “puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk”
Public Opinion Support
- “wildly popular across the country”
- “over 600,000 people submitting comments”
- “American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “ruining our public lands”
- “National forests are the heart of our public lands”
- “destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions”

The comment

There is so little left where humans can experience Gods hand of creation without human destruction. Our continuing short term thinking about natural extraction is theft from our grand children. Nature is analogous to a bank. You borrow from nature way or another youll pay it back. It generally is not the extraction industries that repay. Extraction pattern unfortunately typically follow the pattern of extraction; a failure to restore the extraction areas, bankruptcy and leaving the citizens at taxpayer expense holding the bags. In many cases the extraction inductors foreign corporations. The Roadless Rule generates its own economic benefits. The Roadless Rule should be maintained intact or strengthened! Jim Citizens The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.