Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-455538

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 21, 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

What it names

Works cited
10.1016/j.biocon.2026.11195010.1111/csp2.7041110.1371/journal.pwat.0000538

Attachments

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

  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material

The comment

Recinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conserves approximately 60 million acres of National Forest System lands. Rescinding this rule would diminish protections for rivers, compromise drinking water quality, and reduce recreational opportunities (Olden et al 2026). Building roads into these areas will decrease forest ecosystem functions, increase fire risk and will increase road maintenance costs at an agency that already has a 10.8 billion backlog in deferred maintenance (Mildrexler et al. 2026). These areas burn at lower rates that roaded areas (Killbride et al. 2026). The rescinding of this rule has no appreciable benefits and is scientifically, economically, and biologically irresponsible. David J. Mildrexler, Logan T. Berner, Beverly E. Law, Mary S. Booth, Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States, Biological Conservation, Volume 321, 2026, 111950, ISSN 0006-3207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950. Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. Conservation Science and Practice, e70411. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70411 Olden, Julian D.; Postel, Sandra L.; Dombeck, Michael P.; Kesting, Helen; Freeman, Patrick; Comte, Lise (2026-07-15). "Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature". PLOS Water. 5 (7) e0000538. Public Library of Science. doi:10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538. ISSN 2767-3219.

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