Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-410760

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 1/24Posted September 15, 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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “fragmenting the forests into smaller areas will only increase the risk of severe wildfires”
    • “danger they present to surrounding communities”
    • “construction of further roads will not only make things more dangerous”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “mar the beauty of the great forests”
    • “remove these protections from our public land”
    • “fragmenting the forests”
  • Public Land Access Rights
    • “public land, belong to the people”
    • “source of great pride for many”
    • “protections from our public land”

What it names

Works cited
10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6

The comment

Last year, when a similar repeal of the roadless rule was proposed, it was shut down. All of the same objections still apply. According to a recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) fragmenting the forests into smaller areas will only increase the risk of severe wildfires and the danger they present to surrounding communities. The construction of further roads will not only make things more dangerous, but will mar the beauty of the great forests, which, as public land, belong to the people and are a source of great pride for many. I object vehemently to the proposal to remove these protections from our public land and ask the department to reconsider.

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