Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-532215

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 7/24Owed an answerPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 33 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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Evidence, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “failed to disclose and address its own prior factual findings”
    • “form part of the record the agency should consider”
    • “evaluating its proposal and responding to public comments”

What it names

Law cited
91 Fed. Reg. 5391 Fed. Reg. 57

Attachments

20 files. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material

The comment

Please refer to the 10/02/2026 letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center submitted with confirmation #mur-5suc-54st: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) is submitting these and other documents as attachments to our forthcoming comments on the Proposed Rule, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Cost Benefit Analysis, and other rulemaking documents related to the Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (FS–2025–0001/RIN 0596–AD66; 91 Fed. Reg. 53,827 (Aug. 20, 2026); 91 Fed. Reg. 57,841 (Sept. 11, 2026)). Our comments will explain the relevance of these and all other attachments. Regarding our first documents, the Forest Service has failed to disclose and address its own prior factual findings and judgments regarding the Rule’s importance. These documents are relevant to those prior findings and judgments and form part of the record the agency should consider in evaluating its proposal and responding to public comments.

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