Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-613122

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 1,196 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
- “fragment habitat, accelerate biodiversity loss”
- “reduce biological diversity”
- “protecting intact forest landscapes”
- “jeopardize the ecological integrity of national forests”
Wildlife Habitat
- “wildlife habitat”
- “fragmenting sensitive wildlife habitat”
- “supports rare wildlife”
- “regional network of wildlife habitat”
Water Quality Quantity
- “safeguard clean water”
- “managed for long-term ecological health, clean water”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “quiet recreation”
- “extensive backcountry recreation”
- “degrade quiet recreation opportunities”

What it names

Roadless areas: Green MountainWhite Mountain
Works cited: Furniss et al. 1991

The comment

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001-223869). For 25 years, this policy has protected some of the most ecologically important and undeveloped areas of our national forests from road building and industrial development. These roadless areas safeguard clean water, trout fisheries, wildlife habitat, and quiet recreation across the country. Opening nearly 45 million acres of national forest land to new road construction, commercial logging, and mineral extraction would fragment habitat, accelerate biodiversity loss, and impose high costs on American taxpayers through added road construction and maintenance. The U.S. National Forest System already contains nearly 400,000 miles of roads, most of them fragmenting sensitive wildlife habitat and all of them expensive to maintain. Our nation should be closing and revegetating unneeded backcountry roads, not adding more. Although this proposal does not directly affect the Adirondack Park, the Park is one of the largest intact temperate forest landscapes in the United States, a six-million-acre mosaic of public and private lands that supports rare wildlife, globally significant wetlands, and extensive backcountry recreation. Its ecological integrity is connected to the health of nearby national forests such as the Green Mountain, Finger Lakes, White Mountain, and Allegheny National Forests. These forests contribute to a broader regional network of wildlife habitat and climate-resilient landscapes that support migratory species and ecological processes extending into the Adirondacks. Weakening protections in these forests would undermine that regional connectivity. Commercial logging, mining, and livestock grazing belong on private lands, not on public lands where they reduce biological diversity, degrade quiet recreation opportunities, and cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Public lands should be managed for long-term ecological health, clean water, wildlife, and sustainable recreation, not expanded industrial use. The 2001 Roadless Rule remains one of the most effective tools for protecting intact forest landscapes. Weakening it would undermine decades of conservation progress and jeopardize the ecological integrity of national forests across the country. I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and reject this proposal. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely,