Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-405013

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 15, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes the commenter's 40-year residency and recreational use of the Rio Grande National Forest, specifically the South San Juan and Weminuche Wildernesses, as the basis for their opposition to rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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
- “uninterrupted wildlife corridors”
- “keeps animal populations healthy”
- “disrupt migration”
- “inhibit food finding and breeding”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Extraction of fossil fuels and minerals”
- “detrimental to keeping watersheds clean”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “hiked, camped, fished, skied”
- “built and maintained trails”
- “South San Juan Wilderness”
- “Weminuche Wilderness”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “New roads will not promote fire prevention”
- “human-caused ignitions and fires are more frequent near roads”

What it names

National Forests: Rio Grande National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Legal

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I lived in the San Luis Valley of Colorado for 40 years and hiked, camped, fished, skied, and built and maintained trails in the Rio Grande National Forest, particularly in the South San Juan Wilderness and the Weminuche Wilderness. It took decades of work to create these wilderness areas by people who understand their importance. Having uninterrupted wildlife corridors keeps animal populations healthy and with a larger gene pool. New roads will disrupt migration and inhibit food finding and breeding. New roads will not promote fire prevention, as studies show that human-caused ignitions and fires are more frequent near roads. Extraction of fossil fuels and minerals is detrimental to keeping watersheds clean. And importantly, due to financial constraints, the Forest Service has been unable to maintain existing roads. Adding to that backlog makes no sense. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was a hard fought achievement by those of us respect and protect the roadless areas and wildernesses. To destroy that for short term financial gain is shortsighted. Do not pass this rule.