Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608252

Opposes 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 1,903 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

The comment

I am writing as an outdoor recreation enthusiast to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I oppose full rescission and request that the USDA and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) instead pursue Alternative 1- the No Action alternative. I urge the agency to weigh public feedback, the economic implications on all public lands stakeholders, and scientific evidence carefully before finalizing this decision. The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation policies, and was supported by over 1.6 million public comments in favor of its establishment 25 years ago. It remains an effective tool to protect public lands for future generations. As someone who recreates in our National Forests, I rely on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) for a variety of activities. Additional road construction, increased timber harvesting, and extraction will degrade experiences for users like me. I urge USDA and USFS to fully weigh the recreational value provided for millions of Americans across the country before proceeding. Beyond recreation, roadless areas power rural economies; support wildlife habitat and water quality for millions of Americans; and, promote climate resilience. Rolling back these protections for short-term extractive gain risks trading durable, sustainable economic and ecosystem benefits for the communities I care about. People like me, who contribute to local economies through visitation and spending, deserve a voice in these decisions. I ask that the agency fully account for the irreversible economic, environmental, and social consequences a full repeal would set in motion. These impacts will be felt by my community for generations to come. Decisions of this magnitude impacting our nation’s public lands demand transparency, public input, and a thorough analysis and understanding of their consequences. I ask that USDA and USFS prioritize public feedback, sound science, and the vitality of local communities and economies as this process moves forward. Retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, Mr. Tom Ditolla Salt Lake City, UT

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