Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-593955

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 Evidence.

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
    • “Wildlife migration, watershed integrity, and carbon sequestration transcend state boundaries”
    • “repeal risks damage to forests, wildlife, and water resources”
    • “biodiversity—that all Americans rely upon”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “watershed integrity”
    • “damage to... water resources”
    • “clean water”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “carbon sequestration”
    • “climate stability”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “Federal jurisdiction is necessary for cross-state environmental protection”
    • “Consistent federal standards ensure that economic pressures in individual states do not undermine collective benefits”

The comment

To the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service: I urge you to withdraw the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My opposition is grounded in three considerations: (1) Federal jurisdiction is necessary for cross-state environmental protection. Wildlife migration, watershed integrity, and carbon sequestration transcend state boundaries. Allowing a state-by-state approach creates regulatory arbitrage where environmental outcomes depend on political geography rather than ecological science. (2) The USDA's own DEIS confirms environmental harm. Your agency acknowledges that repeal risks damage to forests, wildlife, and water resources, with little demonstrated wildfire benefit. Fire frequency is demonstrably lower in existing roadless areas, contradicting the stated rationale for this change. (3) National forests serve a national public interest. Forty-five million acres of protected land represent a shared inheritance. Consistent federal standards ensure that economic pressures in individual states do not undermine collective benefits—clean water, climate stability, and biodiversity—that all Americans rely upon. I oppose this rescission and request that the Roadless Rule remain in effect to preserve these public values for future generations.

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