Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-522490

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 30, 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
- “critical big game habitats”
- “Elk, Bear and Moose do not adhere to state boundaries”
- “safeguard vital headwaters”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “frequently hikes and camps on public land”
- “high-use recreation zones”
- “Intact backcountry areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “justification that road construction aids in wildfire mitigation is contradicted”
- “many more man made fires start near roads”
Water Quality Quantity
- “safeguard vital headwaters”
- “drinking-water sources”

What it names

National Forests: White River National Forest

The comment

Dear Forest Service Officials, As a resident of Colorado who frequently hikes and camps on public land, I am writing to express deep concern regarding the proposed full rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. While I recognize that Colorado’s roadless areas currently remain under state-specific governance, the removal of this federal protection across millions of acres nationwide threatens the overarching integrity of America’s national forest system. Intact backcountry areas—such as those adjacent to the wilderness and high-use recreation zones in the White River National Forest—safeguard vital headwaters and critical big game habitats. Elk, Bear and Moose do not adhere to state boundaries! Furthermore, the justification that road construction aids in wildfire mitigation is contradicted by recent Forest Service as many more man made fires start near roads. I urge the agency to abandon the complete rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule and preserve strong national conservation baselines for our public forest heritage.