Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601623

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 286 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
    • “safeguard wildlife habitats”
    • “impact of losing these protections on wildlife”
    • “northwestern pond turtle, which depends on connected aquatic and upland habitat”
    • “save wildlife in the Pacific Northwest”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “protect clean water”
    • “connected ecosystems”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “rescinding the Roadless Rule would undermine decades of conservation wins”
    • “retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and its protections”

The comment

I support keeping the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless forests safeguard wildlife habitats, protect clean water and connect ecosystems. I am especially concerned about the impact of losing these protections on wildlife in Oregon and Washington, including the northwestern pond turtle, which depends on connected aquatic and upland habitat. I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to keep turtles on track — not on roads. Organizations like the Oregon Zoo are working to save wildlife in the Pacific Northwest and rescinding the Roadless Rule would undermine decades of conservation wins. Please choose Alternative 1, No Action, to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for considering my comment.

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