Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604977

Supports rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 449 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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “actively manage forests facing severe wildfire, insects, disease and declining forest health”
    • “reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest conditions and respond to wildfire”
    • “severe wildfire and forest mortality affect millions of acres of roadless forests”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “imposing nationwide restrictions on forests with very different conditions”
    • “Decisions about access and forest management should be made through forest planning and site specific analysis”
    • “give its professionals the flexibility they need”

The comment

I support the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule unnecessarily restricts access and limits the ability of Forest Service professionals to actively manage forests facing severe wildfire, insects, disease and declining forest health. Healthy forests require active management, and effective management requires access. Forest Service professionals should have greater flexibility to reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest conditions and respond to wildfire before more forests, watersheds and wildlife habitat are lost. The Roadless Rule limits that flexibility by imposing nationwide restrictions on forests with very different conditions and management needs. Decisions about access and forest management should be made through forest planning and site specific analysis, where local professionals can apply science and their knowledge of the land. After 25 years, we have seen severe wildfire and forest mortality affect millions of acres of roadless forests across the West. Continuing to restrict management will not keep these forests healthy and standing. I urge the Forest Service to rescind the Roadless Rule and give its professionals the flexibility they need to actively manage our national forests for the future.

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