Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-596683

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 9/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 12,177 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “opening intact wildlife habitat to fragmentation and degradation”
- “essential for the recovery and long-term survival of many imperiled species”
- “adversely affect 327 threatened and endangered species”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect the clean, cold streams required by eastern hellbenders”
- “maintain water quality”
- “sedimentation from human activities as a primary threat”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “biodiversity loss and habitat degradation”
- “ecological connectivity”
- “strengthening protections for roadless areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfires are approximately four times more likely to ignite near roads”
- “Roads increase human access and human-caused ignition sources”
- “not a sound wildfire prevention strategy”

What it names

Works cited: 10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2

The comment

I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For nearly 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected some of America's most important remaining wild forests from road construction, logging, and other forms of industrial development. Rescinding the rule would remove protections from nearly 45 million acres of national forest lands, opening intact wildlife habitat to fragmentation and degradation. Roadless areas are essential for the recovery and long-term survival of many imperiled species. The Forest Services preliminary biological assessment determined that rescinding the Roadless Rule is likely to adversely affect 327 threatened and endangered species and 71 designated critical habitats (p. 25, 161162). In the Northern Rockies, these lands provide some of the highest-value habitat connections for grizzly bears. Approximately 7.7 million acres of Roadless Areas fall within the most important connectivity pathways for female grizzly bears, and 6.7 million acres fall within the highest-value pathways for male bears. These areas represent nearly half of the habitat needed to reconnect isolated grizzly bear populations and support their continued recovery. In the Southern Appalachians, roadless forests help protect the clean, cold streams required by eastern hellbenders. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified sedimentation from human activities as a primary threat to hellbender populations. Intact forest cover helps prevent erosion, maintain water quality, and preserve the rocky stream habitat hellbenders depend on. The Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests support some of the strongest remaining hellbender populations, demonstrating the importance of protecting these largely undeveloped public lands. The Forest Service has argued that rescinding the Roadless Rule could help address wildfire risk, but recent peer-reviewed research suggests otherwise. A 2026 study found that wildfires are approximately four times more likely to ignite near roads than in roadless areas. Roads increase human access and human-caused ignition sources, including unattended campfires, discarded cigarettes, and vehicle-related sparks. Opening intact backcountry forests to additional road construction is not a sound wildfire prevention strategy. Roadless areas protect wildlife, clean water, climate resilience, and ecological connectivity. Once roads are built, habitat fragmentation and ecosystem impacts can persist for decades. At a time when biodiversity loss and habitat degradation continue to threaten wildlife across the United States, the Forest Service should be strengthening protections for roadless areas rather than eliminating them. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and maintain the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. References: U.S. Forest Service. Roadless Areas. https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless U.S. Forest Service. Draft EIS. https://usfs-public.app.box.com/s/gomzq6rruwsds8rw50o3j3g429utj8f6/file/2415112742244 Bears Belong. The Roadless Rule: How rescinding the Roadless Rule will negatively impact grizzlies. https://www.bearsbelong.com/roadless-rule U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species Status Assessment Report for the Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis), Version 2.1, 2024. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/DownloadFile/263350 U.S. Forest Service. Becoming the Hellbender. National Forests in North Carolina, March 18, 2025. https://www.fs.usda.gov/r08/northcarolina/newsroom/stories/becoming-hellbender Belote, R.T., et al. (2026). Human access and wildfire ignition patterns in roaded and roadless forests. Fire Ecology, 22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2