Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-593575

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 1/24Posted 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

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protecting our nation's natural landscape”
- “substantially complement[s] biodiversity conservation”
- “protects threatened species”
- “endanger wildlife”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “old-growth forests found in roadless areas are responsible for significant carbon sequestering”
- “ensure our children and their children will live in a habitable world”
- “ravaged by climate change”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “roadless areas have up to four times fewer wildfire incidents”
- “humans are responsible for the overwhelming majority of wildfires”
- “restricting human access to remote wildlands will reduce wildfire incidence”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “provide tribal members access to remote areas”
- “new co-management structures”
- “threaten sacred sites, traditional gathering areas”

What it names

Works cited: Balch et al. 2017

The comment

I'm writing to submit a comment AGAINST rescinding the "Roadless Rule" (enacted in 2001) in effect across the United States. The roadless rule is essential for protecting our nation's natural landscape, one of our greatest legacies and one that affects the rest of the planet. I do not believe the listed explanations for rescinding the rule are sufficient to justify putting our nation's forests and biological health at risk. Research shows that the roadless rule "substantially complement[s] biodiversity conservation" (DeVelice & Martin, 2001), protects threatened species (Loucks et al. 2003), and that allowing road construction or resource extraction has the potential to not only endanger wildlife but public health (Talty, Mott Lacroix, Aplet & Belote, 2020; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; ) Contrary to some arguments in favor of rescinding the rule, decades of studies have shown that roadless areas have up to four times fewer wildfire incidents (Aplet, Hartger & Dietz 2026) and that humans are responsible for the overwhelming majority of wildfires (Balch et al. 2017), so it follows that restricting human access to remote wildlands will reduce wildfire incidence. As mentioned previously, the global importance of protecting America's wildlands cannot be overstated. Multiple studies show that old-growth forests found in roadless areas are responsible for significant carbon sequestering (DellaSala, Gorelik & Walker, 2022; Buotte, Law, Ripple & Berner, 2020; Dinerstein, Buotte, Law et al., 2021). We MUST protect these areas to ensure our children and their children will live in a habitable world, not one ravaged by climate change and accelerated destruction of the natural world. I also believe exceptions or amends are necessary to provide tribal members access to remote areas; however such access could be assured via "new co-management structures" as suggested. I strongly believe that rescinding the rule will, as stated: "[expose] previously untouched areas to industrial activity, mining interests, and destructive recreational access, all of which threaten sacred sites, traditional gathering areas, water quality, and subsistence resources." One of our nation's greatest treasures is our natural landscape. We cannot allow the stripping of our land for parts or an auction to the highest bidder. PLEASE PROTECT THE ROADLESS RULE. WE ARE BEGGING YOU!