Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-242581

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 21, 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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “threaten and destroy wildlife habitat”
- “destroy habitats”
- “be better stewards of Our public lands”
Water Quality Quantity
- “pollute our waters”
- “degrade water quality in watersheds”
- “harm our drinking water”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Millions of campers, hikers, climbers, paddlers, anglers, and hunters could be locked out”
- “impacts to the recreation industry will have significant adverse impacts on the economy”
- “outdoor recreation industry, which accounts for $1.2 trillion in economic output”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “New road development will increase the risk of wildfire”
- “increasing wildfire risk”

Attachments

3 files. Counts as 105 — Counted from the files: The enclosed submissions were counted from the files themselves.

Enclosed submissions
Own letter
Own letter

The comment

I echo what the AG's of the States of Washington, California, Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont have said in their public comments on the Roadless Rule. From their comments: "The Agency’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule would open up nearly 45 million acres of National Forest land to road construction, commercial logging, mining, and other industrial activity. New road development will increase the risk of wildfire, pollute our waters, threaten and destroy wildlife habitat, and increase road maintenance costs. Millions of campers, hikers, climbers, paddlers, anglers, and hunters could be locked out of areas they have enjoyed access to for decades, and impacts to the recreation industry will have significant adverse impacts on the economy. The outdoor recreation industry, which accounts for $1.2 trillion in economic output, relies on access to these areas to do business. So too do the rural communities that surround them. An estimated 158 million visitors to National Forests contributed $13.7 billion to the economy and helped support 161,000 related jobs. Moreover, new roads and logging resulting from rescission of the Roadless Rule are expected to degrade water quality in watersheds found in inventoried roadless areas that provide a clean, reliable source of drinking water to millions of Americans." My input as a U S. Citizen who lives in California that has over 20 million acres of National Forest land is to NOT rescind the Roadless Rule, be better stewards of Our public lands as the research suggests. See attached files to support keeping the Roadless Rule as it is, do not allow changes that hurt our public forest lands by increasing wildfire risk, harm our drinking water, or destroy habitats.