Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579934

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 8,291 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

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “protects more than 44 million acres of land from logging and road construction”
    • “Wildlife habitat will be shattered, pushing vulnerable species to the brink”
    • “jeopardizing our nation's most treasured old-growth forests”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “Drinking water will be polluted for millions of Americans”
    • “increased runoff and contamination from deforestation”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “Old-growth forests will be destroyed, releasing more carbon”
    • “worsening the climate crisis”
  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “open the door to road-building, logging, and industrial development”
    • “sacrificed for corporate profits”

What it names

National Forests
Tongass National Forest

The comment

As an environmentalist and member of the League of Conservation Voters, I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule currently protects more than 44 million acres of land from logging and road construction, including old-growth forests like the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It is one of the most important safeguards we have to protect our national forests from corporate development. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the door to road-building, logging, and industrial development, jeopardizing our nation’s most treasured old-growth forests and threatening the health and safety of communities across the country. This rollback is a blatant, reckless giveaway to corporate polluters — with devastating costs for our communities and our planet: - Wildlife habitat will be shattered, pushing vulnerable species to the brink - Drinking water will be polluted for millions of Americans, due to increased runoff and contamination from deforestation. - Old-growth forests will be destroyed, releasing more carbon and worsening the climate crisis. - Wildfires will be made more destructive, fueled by new roads and reckless development. - Our last wild places will be lost, sacrificed for corporate profits. We cannot risk losing these protections. Help keep our forests, climate, and communities safe — do not repeal the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Pamela Vasquez

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