Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-427102

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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
- “Native plants, as opposed to invasives, increase wildlife abundance and diversity”
- “Roads decrease wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors”
- “Not animals or plants”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I am a hiker and a camper”
- “share a love of the region's wild places with hunters, anglers, and Sunday picnickers”
- “Not hikers, campers, hunters, anglers, picnickers, photographers or birdwatchers”
Resource Development Extraction
- “Private extractive resource companies would benefit”
- “Mining companies in particular, could dissect our forest”
- “this land could not be returned to a wild state once the extraction is finished”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless area”
- “concerned about the risk of devastating wildfires”
- “rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect us from these fires”

What it names

National Forests: Gila National Forest

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

September 16, 2026 Brooke L. Rollins Secretary of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 I am writing to state my strong opposition to the rescission or partial rescission of the Roadless Rule. I live in Silver City, New Mexico, surrounded by 3.3 million acres of Gila National Forest. I retired to Silver City largely because of those 3.3 million acres, as have many others. I am a hiker and a camper; however, I share a love of the region’s wild places with hunters, anglers, and Sunday picnickers who may not share my political persuasion. We have 3,300 miles of roads to access the region. Not only do we not need more; it would be harmful to increase them. I am concerned about the risk of devastating wildfires. We have been told that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect us from these fires. However, recent studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless area. I am concerned about invasive plants, which are spread by road construction, vehicles, and timber harvest. Native plants, as opposed to invasives, increase wildlife abundance and diversity. Roads decrease wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. Who would benefit from rescinding the Roadless Rule in the Gila National Forest? Not hikers, campers, hunters, anglers, picnickers, photographers or birdwatchers. Not animals or plants. Private extractive resource companies would benefit. Mining companies in particular, could dissect our forest and gut what makes this place beloved to its local residents and visitors. Furthermore, this land could not be returned to a wild state once the extraction is finished. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Marty Eberhardt 227 N. California Ave. Silver City, NM 88061 September 16, 2026 Brooke L. Rollins Secretary of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 I am writing to state my strong opposition to the rescission or partial rescission of the Roadless Rule. I live in Silver City, New Mexico, surrounded by 3.3 million acres of Gila National Forest. I retired to Silver City largely because of those 3.3 million acres, as have many others. I am a hiker and a camper; however, I share a love of the region’s wild places with hunters, anglers, and Sunday picnickers who may not share my political persuasion. We have 3,300 miles of roads to access the region. Not only do we not need more; it would be harmful to increase them. I am concerned about the risk of devastating wildfires. We have been told that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect us from these fires. However, recent studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless area. I am concerned about invasive plants, which are spread by road construction, vehicles, and timber harvest. Native plants, as opposed to invasives, increase wildlife abundance and diversity. Roads decrease wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. Who would benefit from rescinding the Roadless Rule in the Gila National Forest? Not hikers, campers, hunters, anglers, picnickers, photographers or birdwatchers. Not animals or plants. Private extractive resource companies would benefit. Mining companies in particular, could dissect our forest and gut what makes this place beloved to its local residents and visitors. Furthermore, this land could not be returned to a wild state once the extraction is finished. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Marty Eberhardt 227 N. California Ave. Silver City, NM 88061 I strongly oppose the rescission or partial rescission of the roadless rule. My later, which I also sent via USPO, is attached.