Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-343049

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Posted 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

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
- “car-wildlife collisions”
- “major depopulating force for endangered animals”
- “critical to conservationist”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building roads in heavily wooded areas increases wildfire risk”
- “doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “Keeping these national forests largely roadless”
- “will do far more harm than good”
- “critical to conservationist”

What it names

Works cited: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6

The comment

I am a second-year biological sciences student. I grew up visiting national forests and picking up roadkill in my own neighborhood. The current administration's decision to allow roads to be built in protected areas will do far more harm than good. Building roads in heavily wooded areas increases wildfire risk (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6), and the presence of those roads also increases the risk of car-wildlife collisions- in the state of California alone, those collisions are major depopulating force for endangered animals and they cost 200 million dollars per year (https://phys.org/news/2024-06-roadkill-natural-disaster.html). Keeping these national forests largely roadless is critical to conservationist and the wider public's interest.