Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-613228

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

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 3 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 the wilderness surrounding me”
    • “protects not only ecosystems, but the endangered species like Hellbenders”
    • “protects some of the wildest forests we have left”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions”
    • “support a stable environment”
  • Public Opinion Support
    • “wildly popular across the country”
    • “over 600,000 people submitting comments... in support of keeping the rule”
    • “American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected”

The comment

I have grown up hiking on the trails and seeing the beauty of Western North Carolina for 17 years. Honestly, nothing has made me more angry than having to continually fight to protect the wilderness surrounding me over the past several years from our own government, which was created to protect the interests of the people of the United States of America. The Roadless Rule exists to protect these areas of wilderness that support a stable environment, and the continuous attempts to degrade them endanger livelihoods and our fundamental rights to life and liberty. The Roadless Rule protects not only ecosystems, but the endangered species like Hellbenders that live in them as well. There is no reason to repeal the Roadless Rule to encourage economic greed. It would be different if this were solely to prevent wildfires in wilderness areas that are difficult to reach, but the public understands that it would be more for corporate greed than for our common good. Thank you for your time.

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