Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-225566

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted 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 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
- “worried about the many endangered species”
- “They will lose vital habitat”
- “push more big predators into populated areas”
- “human-wildlife interactions”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “loves to be outside”
- “allows us all space to recreate, fish, hunt”
- “satisfying it is to backpack in to a place without roads”
- “pristine landscapes”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “wants to see it protected”
- “The Roadless Rule protects wildlife”
- “building roads through pristine landscapes will not be beneficial to the earth”

What it names

National Forests: Bitterroot National Forest

The comment

Hello, I am a concerned citizen who wants to speak up in favor of keeping the Roadless Rule. I am an active person who loves to be outside, and spent 2 summers working for the USFS on the Bitterroot National Forest. I explored so much of that land, and I want to see it protected. I am worried about the many endangered species who live in this area where you are proposing to put in new roads. They will lose vital habitat. Additionally, it could push more big predators into populated areas where they could have more human-wildlife interactions. The Roadless Rule protects wildlife, humans, and allows us all space to recreate, fish, hunt, and more! Projects can still be done. I have also worked on a trail crew in wilderness areas, and I know how satisfying it is to backpack in to a place without roads to work on a conservation or fuels project. I do not believe that building roads through pristine landscapes will be beneficial to people or the earth.