Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-573872

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “wildfire rationale is weak”
    • “rule already allows fuel-reduction work”
    • “new backcountry roads add ignition sources”
    • “targets the wildland-urban interface”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “state rule tailored protections through real public process”
    • “45 days with no hearings”
    • “falls far short of the 2001 process”
    • “replaces a national floor with nothing”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “proposal also contradicts itself”
    • “rescission authorizes no projects”
    • “Alternative 3 is the minimum”
    • “retain the Roadless Rule”

The comment

The wildfire rationale is weak: the rule already allows fuel-reduction work, and new backcountry roads add ignition sources. The proposal also contradicts itself. The agency says rescission authorizes no projects and increases no logging or roads. If so, it delivers no wildfire benefit. I live in Colorado, where a state rule tailored protections through real public process while keeping limits on backcountry roads. Full rescission replaces a national floor with nothing. If the rule isn't kept, Alternative 3 is the minimum: it targets the wildland-urban interface, where community fire risk actually is, and protects true backcountry. Finally, 45 days with no hearings for 44.7 million acres falls far short of the 2001 process. Please retain the Roadless Rule.

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