Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-576210

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 534 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
- “protects some of the wildest forests we have left”
- “protect critical wildlife habitat”
- “puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions”
- “drinking water for millions”
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”

The comment

I desperately implore whoever is reading this to listen. This administration is making decisions with irreparable ecological harm. I live on the boundary of national forest in Vermont. I have seen black bears, foxes, coyotes and was even lucky enough to see a lynx that had traveled down from Canada using the national forest as its wildlife corridor. Our ecosystem is in a fragile and perilous state as is. However, it seems you people will probably only listen to costs rather than values. 90% of forest fires being within half a mile of a road. Fighting fires and fire damage is incredibly costly. If it doesnt physically pain you to think of the flora, fauna and generations children trying to survive in an increasingly hostile world than listen to the dollars. It is not the moral or economical decision to repeal. 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.