Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-416401

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 16, 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
- “As a wildlife biologist”
- “evaluating short- and long-term impacts of development”
- “beloved areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “minimizes forest fire risk”
- “human-caused fires”
- “occurred within 0-250 meters from a road”
Governance Policy Process
- “strongly oppose rescission of the roadless rule”
- “reevaluate impacts of rescinding”
- “Alternative 1- No Action- is the only responsible option”

What it names

National Forests: Coconino National Forest Coconino National Forest Prescott National Forest

The comment

Hello, As a wildlife biologist frequently tasked with evaluating short- and long-term impacts of development, I strongly oppose rescission of the roadless rule. Among many other benefits, roadless rule minimizes forest fire risk in these beloved areas. According to a 2026 study, the vast majority of human-caused fires (per 1,000 ha) occurred within 0-250 meters from a road. Under the proposed alternatives 2 and 3 (full rescission and modified rescission) ALL lands protected in my home forest, Coconino National Forest (and neighboring Prescott NF), would lose protection. The Coconino National Forest presently allows logging on millions of acres and opening roadless areas on the Coconino NF is unnecessary and irresponsible. I strongly urge USDA to reevaluate impacts of rescinding the roadless rule, as it is clear that the agency has not correctly estimated impacts. Alternative 1- No Action- is the only responsible option.