Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted August 20, 2026 On Regulations.gov
Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.
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.
Still open to the agency
Alternative already eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe 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 decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe 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 shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
Docket ID: FS-2025-0001Title: Comments on the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless RuleI am writing as a citizen who deeply values our public lands to express my strong opposition to the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. Protecting roughly 45 million acres of untouched forest across the country is not just a policy preference for me—it is a deeply personal issue.Protecting the Heart of Our Wild Spaces and the Routt National ForestOur inventoried roadless areas are the last remaining sanctuaries of quiet and ecological health in our national forests. Living near and exploring the Routt National Forest, I see firsthand how vital these undeveloped backcountry areas are. They provide critical, unbroken habitat corridors for elk and deer, shield pristine watersheds that supply our local communities with clean drinking water, and offer places of unmatched quiet away from modern development. If we open these remaining roadless blocks to industrial logging and road building, we cannot undo the damage. Once a wild space is fragmented by roads, its unique wilderness character is lost forever.Challenging the Claims on Wildfire ManagementI am deeply concerned by the administration’s claim that repealing this rule will somehow improve wildfire management. This argument simply does not match the reality of forest ecology or common sense:Roads Bring Fire Risks: More roads mean more human access, which heavily increases the chances of accidental, human-caused ignitions in remote areas that are currently protected.Logging Doesn't Solve the Problem: Permitting commercial timber harvesting under the guise of fire safety is misleading. Taking out large, mature trees and leaving behind dry, flammable debris actually creates hotter, drier, and windier conditions that allow fires to spread faster, not slower.We Already Have Safety Tools: The existing framework already allows forest managers to do necessary fire mitigation and handle emergencies. Stripping away the entire rule feels like an excuse to let commercial timber interests into places they don't belong, rather than a genuine effort to protect communities.ConclusionIf we want to protect communities from fire, we should focus our funding and energy directly around the towns and homes in the Wildland-Urban Interface—not miles deep into pristine backcountry like the roadless zones of the Routt National Forest. I urge you to listen to the citizens who love and depend on these wild spaces and leave the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact.