Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-611886

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 15,005 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
    • “safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for big game and cold-water fish species”
    • “Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival”
    • “ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans”
    • “provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West”
    • “Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds”
  • Tribal Sovereignty
    • “protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food”
    • “supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering”
    • “Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule”

The comment

I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy. Thank you

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