Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-417320

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Posted September 16, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the commenter's property in Wilson, WY, shares a boundary with a National Forest and has suffered significant damage from fires started by recreational campers, thereby documenting specific local impacts and supporting the 'No Action' alternative.

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
    • “Rescission of the Roadless Rule will not protect our forests from fire”
    • “It is more likely to exacerbate it”
    • “fires started by recreational campers spread quickly”
    • “heavily logged in the 1960's... little effort to reestablish the forest”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “A large herd of elk spend the summer on this same forest”
    • “Recreational traffic will disrupt their already very fragile existence”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “I implore you to support the "No Action" Alternative”
    • “Rescission of the Roadless Rule”

The comment

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

To Whom it Concerns, The property where I have lived for fifty years shares a boundary with the National Forest. This particular forest was heavily logged in the 1960's, accessed by numerous roads. After the logging operation ended there was little effort to reestablish the forest or reclaim the roads. And sixty years later, the clear cuts have only stunted and sparse growth. The roads remain. On two occasions, fires started by recreational campers spread quickly to our property. The largest of the two fires - which ultimately covered over 4,000 acres - burned approximately half of our place, about fifty acres. Our fences were destroyed and, though our house did not burn, it was heavily damaged from the fire retardant. The perpetrators fire were never caught. https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/26/wyoming.fire/index.html Rescission of the Roadless Rule will not protect our forests from fire. It is more likely to exacerbate it. A large herd of elk spend the summer on this same forest. Recreational traffic will disrupt their already very fragile existence. I implore you to support the "No Action" Alternative. Zaidee Fuller PO Box 8 Wilson, WY 83014

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