Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-358022

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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
- “concerned about opening up these pristine wildernesses to mining”
- “home to the Apache trout, and the Gila National Forest in NM is home to the threatened Gila trout”
- “encroaching roads in these landscapes would have a lasting negative effect on wildlife”
- “Habitat loss due to deforestation, logging, and mining has led to the extinction of species”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “loves the desert, its varied and vibrant ecosystems and wildlife”
- “protect public lands to keep even just one species from the wretched fate”
- “permanent and lasting effect on the beautiful biodiversity of MY public lands”
- “last wild spaces are slowly eaten away for corporate profit”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Both national forests and their waterways would be heavily impacted by rescinding the Roadless Rule”
- “catching trout”
- “fishing and camping”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “spent summers as a kid fishing and camping”
- “crossing paths with elk, catching trout, and identifying the coolest-looking mushroom”
- “remote pockets of wilderness”

What it names

National Forests: Gila National Forest Kaibab National Forest Prescott National Forest Tonto National Forest

The comment

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I currently live on the doorstep of Appalachia but grew up in the equally beautiful American Southwest. As someone who loves the desert, its varied and vibrant ecosystems and wildlife, I am concerned about opening up these pristine wildernesses to mining. The Kaibab National Forest in AZ is home to the Apache trout, and the Gila National Forest in NM is home to the threatened Gila trout. Both national forests and their waterways would be heavily impacted by rescinding the Roadless Rule. I spent summers as a kid fishing and camping in the Prescott National Forest, Tonto National Forest, and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Many formative and wonderful memories were made under those ponderosa pines, crossing paths with elk, catching trout, and identifying the coolest-looking mushroom. In Appalachia, a region that has been the victim of an extraction economy for generations, the last thing we need is for roads to cut through our precious few remaining remote pockets of wilderness for logging and mining interests to take hold. Aside from increasing vehicle collisions with wildlife, encroaching roads in these landscapes would have a lasting negative effect on wildlife. And where roads go in, logging and mining follow. It is a repeatable cycle that we have watched play out for decades as our last wild spaces are slowly eaten away for corporate profit. Habitat loss due to deforestation, logging, and mining has led to the extinction of species in America that were robbed from all following generations. I will do my part to protect public lands to keep even just one species from the wretched fate of the Ivory-billed woodpecker and many others. As a reminder, public land belongs to the American People, who overwhelmingly support protecting the Roadless Rule fully and keeping public lands in public hands. The privatization of these lands is anathema to the American ethos and what is largely considered the greatest American invention, the establishment of National Parks and National Forests across the country. Saved, preserved, and restored for the American people forever. For the reasons listed above and a multitude more, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake that would have a permanent and lasting effect on the beautiful biodiversity of MY public lands.