Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-447974

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 18, 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
- “loss of habitat for the many wild animals”
- “animals lose their food supplies of vegetation and prey”
- “fewer and fewer species of plant and animals”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “85% of wildland fires are caused by human beings”
- “Having more roads in the wilderness will lead to more human activity and ultimately to more fires”
- “less destructive method of thinning the forests”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “destruction of the natural world”
- “less and less wildland for forests, animals and humans”
- “grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have only small restricted natural places”

The comment

Although I was born and raised in Texas, for nearly 60 years I have lived, first in Colorado and now in New Mexico. These states and others in the western part of our country will be most affected by the repeal of Roadless Road Rule of 2001. I have personally witnessed the destruction of the natural world for resource extraction and the sprawl of urban living, leading to less and less wildland for forests, animals and humans. My great fear is that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have only small restricted natural places. Where there are roads there is development. Of the over 600 million acres of forest land in the United States the National Forest System controls about 193 million acres of which only about 58 million acres are protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001. This results in a total of 542 million acres (including 135 acres in the national forests) available to build roads for commercial endeavors such as logging, mining, fossil fuel extraction, recreation, urban development, etc. According to a National Park Service release in 2025, 85% of wildland fires are caused by human beings. Having more roads in the wilderness will lead to more human activity and ultimately to more fires. If the reason to have more roads in the wildlands is for greater fire suppression, a less destructive method of thinning the forests would be the use of small tractors and all-terrain vehicles that can carry work crews into the forests for their work of harvesting selected trees. The logged trees and related brush can be carried out by these smaller vehicles to an existing road where the logs can be forwarded for commercial uses and the brush can be put into a woodchipper and made into mulch. This approach has the additional benefit of creating more jobs for humans. A major unintended consequence of rescinding the Roadless Rule is the loss of habitat for the many wild animals that make their homes in the wilderness. Wherever human beings invade, animals lose their food supplies of vegetation and prey. As our country becomes more and more developed, we have fewer and fewer species of plant and animals, the very living organisms that make our world livable. Please do not rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 for the 44.7 million acres of national forest land currently under consideration. Prior to 1850 what is now the United States had over one billion acres of forest. Today less than two-thirds of our national treasure remains. Nancy A. Murphy ! Via Tertia Santa Fe, NM 87507