Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-342723

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 4/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Alternative.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.

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.
  • 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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “More fires are started by humans near roads”
    • “building more roads there could be potential for more forest fire starts”
    • “almost 7 billion dollar backlog of work that needs to be done on current roads”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “Building more will take more tax dollars”
    • “put us further behind in road/bridge maintenance”
    • “This will be cheaper therefore more profitable”
  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “The real reason is to appeal to mining companies and logging”
    • “plenty of NFS lands that already have roads and could still be timbered”
    • “create a way to fast track logging in areas that already have roads”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “more than half of visitations and time is spent in roadless areas annually”
    • “It is said that roadless areas are inaccessible however”

The comment

The roadless rule should not be rescinded. Justifications for doing so are false. More fires are started by humans near roads therefore it would make sense that by building more roads there could be potential for more forest fire starts. There is already an almost 7 billion dollar backlog of work that needs to be done on current roads. Building more will take more tax dollars and only put us further behind in road/bridge maintenance in the future. It is said that roadless areas are inaccessible however per the national forest service reports more than half of visitations and time is spent in roadless areas annually. The real reason is to appeal to mining companies and logging. I know we need both logging and mining to occur to keep this country functioning. However, I am quite familiar with NFS lands in each category with roads and without. There are still plenty of NFS lands that already have roads and could still be timbered, but get tied up in litigation before can be logged. A better middle ground would be to keep the roadless rule intact and instead create a way to fast track logging in areas that already have roads. This will be cheaper therefore more profitable.

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