Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-592035

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 3 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored as the letter — The shared letter of a family, scored once for everyone who sent it.

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
    • “wildlife that depends on them”
    • “tremendous loss to the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat”
    • “roadless areas and their wild denizens be harmed”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “degrade our precious water”
    • “both in quantity and quality”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “high regard for wild beauty of our forests, rivers, and mountains”
    • “predicted to result in fewer outdoor recreationists”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “will not help prevent forest fire”
    • “result in additional human caused forest fire”

The comment

I am a citizen of the United States [or Utah or Wyoming] and have lived here most of my long life. Like most people of Utah, I have a high regard for wild beauty of our forests, rivers, and mountains. I want to preserve them at all costs for all life, including the wildlife that depends on them. I am adamantly opposed to rescinding the Roadless Rule. Numerous studies, including opinions of the Forest Service confirm that will not accomplish any of the objectives that are promised for it. It will not help prevent forest fire but result in additional human caused forest fire; it will degrade our precious water, both in quantity and quality; it is predicted to result in fewer outdoor recreationists, not more; and will result in a tremendous loss to the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat. There is simply no reasonable rationale for it. Not only will the roadless areas and their wild denizens be harmed, many of our roadless areas surround or are adjacent to federal wilderness areas and act as a buffer to their protection and will also therefore be degraded and harmed. To degrade the roadless areas would be to degrade the qualities of the wilderness.

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