Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-557529

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

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 1,156 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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “travel frequently with my family to hike, camp, and backpack”
    • “bring the kids in our family here to relax and reset”
    • “best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb”
    • “critical to our high quality of life”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “offer refuges to plants, animals, and people”
    • “contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species”
    • “home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests”
    • “protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Roads would bring more people... potential for wildfires to start”
    • “90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road”
    • “wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads”
    • “Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire”
  • Public Opinion Support
    • “The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular”
    • “supported by millions of Americans”
    • “Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone”
    • “unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort”

The comment

I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working. Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas. Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb. I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather. Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone. I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative. Sincerely, Rachel Vanderpool Oregon

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