Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-380405

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted September 14, 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
    • “benefits of the Roadless Rule (such as habitat, water quality, and air quality) are more important now”
    • “beneficial for our nation, the people, the flora and fauna, and the natural ecosystems”
    • “ecological importance”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “outdoor recreation opportunities available to us”
    • “adventures to experience nature abound in Idaho”
    • “The public has access now; they don't need more roads to enjoy this gem”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “benefits of the Roadless Rule (such as habitat, water quality, and air quality) are more important now”

What it names

National Forests
Bitterroot National Forest

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

September 13, 2026 My Public Comments on the proposed ‘Roadless Rule’ by the US Forest Service: Idaho is a GREAT State. One quality that most Idahoans love about our state is the outdoor recreation opportunities available to us. These adventures to experience nature abound in Idaho. It is a part of our heritage. We, the people, love these lands and all that they provide for our wellbeing. Let’s talk about the US Forest Service and the ‘Roadless Rule’, passed in 2001. The USFS reasoning behind this rule 25 years ago was 1) ecological importance, 2) overwhelming popularity with the public, 3) economically responsible. All these points are just as valid in 2026 as they were in 2001. In fact, it could be argued that benefits of the Roadless Rule (such as habitat, water quality, and air quality) are more important now. Repealing the Roadless Rule is myopic folly. It would be a harmful decision for our State and our Nation for the foreseeable future. A repeal is not necessary; the USFS currently has too many miles of road to maintain. The preservation of roadless areas is so beneficial for our nation, the people, the flora and fauna, and the natural ecosystems.This August, my wife and I just spent four days in the Selway/Bitterroot National Forest. What a beautiful and sacred place! The public has access now; they don’t need more roads to enjoy this gem of the Gem State. The public needs to know these lands are protected by our government. Forever. Sincerely, Gerald Flatz 1347 S. Tetonia Dr. Boise, ID 83705 GHFlatz@msn.com

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