Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-612987

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 4 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

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds”
    • “endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals”
    • “jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska's Tongass National Forest”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans”
    • “increased flooding, and more landslides”
    • “protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle”
    • “cherished public lands like California's Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity”
    • “destructive logging and road building is reckless”

What it names

National Forests
Tahoe National ForestTongass National Forest

The comment

I oppose this plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and leave in place the regulations that protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential and irreplaceable forests and natural landscapes. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who love them and for our future generations.

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