Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-270904

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 26, 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

  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “federal climate record is... the controlling consideration”
    • “against that record the proposed rescission... is not supportable”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Opening roadless lands to logging is NOT a strategy for reducing fire danger”
    • “wildfire ignition density within 50 meters of roads was nearly four times higher”
    • “Roadless areas maintain more natural fire regimes”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “enjoyed our unplugged time here as a sanctuary”
    • “we do not want these lands impacted, destroyed, or taken away”
    • “IRAs increase the size of—and reduce isolation between—protected areas”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “IRAs protect watersheds that deliver drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people”

What it names

Roadless areas
Coconino Rim
Works cited
10.1111/csp2.28810.1186/s42408-026-00450-2

Attachments

2 files. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Own letter
  • Own letter

The comment

To the Roadless Rule Rulemaking Team: The federal climate record is, in my judgment as a citizen, the controlling consideration in the present rulemaking, and against that record the proposed rescission of the 2001 Rule is not supportable. When I think about wildfire and the forests I care about, Coconino Rim comes to mind. My husband and I visited this area in 2018, and enjoyed our unplugged time here as a sanctuary. Being in nature is critical to our (and many others) physical and mental health, and we do not want these lands impacted, destroyed, or taken away. The Department is respectfully requested to treat that account as what it is — a demonstration of the concrete, non-speculative harm that rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would produce. Opening roadless lands to logging is NOT a strategy for reducing fire danger. In fact, road building and vegetation management reshape fire regimes by changing ignition sources, fuel loads, and landscape-scale fire behavior. Roads are where most wildfires start. A 2026 study covering 30 years of wildfire data across the entire National Forest System found that wildfire ignition density within 50 meters of roads was nearly four times higher than the average for non-wilderness, non-roadless forest lands. Wilderness areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas had the lowest ignition densities of any category studied (Aplet et al. 2026). — Gregory H. Aplet, Phil Hartger, Matthew S. Dietz, 2026 · Fire Ecology (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2) Roadless areas maintain more natural fire regimes. Because roadless areas lack the access that enables intensive suppression and the traffic that brings human ignitions, they retain fire patterns closer to what their ecosystems evolved with. Adding roads changes both ends of the equation at once (Aplet et al. 2026; USDA Forest Service 2001). — Gregory H. Aplet, Phil Hartger, Matthew S. Dietz, 2026 · Fire Ecology (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2) “In 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule prohibited road construction and timber harvest in 240,000 km² of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) located on United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service lands. Many IRAs are among the most wild, undeveloped areas both in the nation and within their respective states. IRAs increase the size of—and reduce isolation between—protected areas, likely buffering them from external stressors. In some places, IRAs protect watersheds that deliver drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people. — Conservation Science and Practice (Wiley), 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288)” This comment is filed in the formal record in opposition to the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Best regards, Aubrey CommentID: RLC-20260825-XVLHWB

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