Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-513415

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 29, 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “writing as a recreationist to oppose”
- “As a recreator, I am concerned”
- “intimate knowledge of the Bishop... roadless area(s)”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk”
- “96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road”
- “more roads mean more fires”
- “Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments”
Water Quality Quantity
- “particularly concerned about clean water”
- “California's water supply is going to increasingly rely on the forests”
- “protect undeveloped wildlands”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “facing down the impacts of climate change”
- “Our public lands already face so many challenges due to climate change”
- “We cannot afford to further complicate the situation”

What it names

Roadless areas: Coyote NorthWheeler Ridge

The comment

"I am writing as a recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. We cannot afford to have inconsistent environment protections while facing down the impacts of climate change. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. The Forest Service has a duty to manage forest land in the best interest of the American people, and given that the data has shown that increasing roads will increase fires, the choice is clear. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about clean water. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about California's water supply is going to increasingly rely on the forests that make up the Sierra Nevada considering the supply from the Colorado River is decreasing. Our public lands already face so many challenges due to climate change. We cannot afford to further complicate the situation by changing the landscape when we know the consequences will be negative. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."