Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-596537

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.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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
    • “losing wildlife”
    • “adversely affect 327 threatened and endangered species”
    • “northern spotted owl, grizzly bears, and various fish species”
    • “71 designated critical habitats are at risk”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “contamination of water”
    • “25 million Americans source their clean drinking water from roadless areas”
    • “rolls back protections for 80,000 miles of protected rivers”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “economic loss”
    • “losses in revenue for local businesses from tourism”
    • “cost of new road construction”
    • “$7 billion USFS road maintenance backlog”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “major risk of unnecessary wildfire”
    • “keep nearly 45 million acres of forests under the protection”

The comment

I would address this comment with : To all whom this may concern; but truly this is a concern to all people. To all Americans, to all beings living on this land. Please keep nearly 45 million acres of forests under the protection of the Roadless Rule. I stand with the notion to keep the Roadless rule as is and oppose rescinding. The effects of rescinding lead to major risk of unnecessary wildfire, losing wildlife, economic loss, and contamination of water. “The DEIS states that rescinding the Roadless Rule is “likely to adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species, including the northern spotted owl, grizzly bears, and various fish species. Additionally, 71 designated critical habitats are at risk. The DEIS estimates that between $5-$11 million in revenue could be generated through new logging projects in roadless areas. This number pales in comparison to the current $7 billion USFS road maintenance backlog, the cost of new road construction, and the losses in revenue for local businesses from tourism. 25 million Americans source their clean drinking water from roadless areas. Undoing the Roadless Rules rolls back protections for 80,000 miles of protected rivers.” (De Man, 2026) These are all examples and facts of the major impacts that can happen if the administration decides to move forward with rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I am amongst the 76% of people that agree this would be a poor decision. Please respect the responsibility we have to upkeep public lands for future generations. For the best of All. De Man, W. C. (2026, August 23). Let me teach you how to defend the Roadless Rule (again). National Park History. https://nationalparkhistory.substack.com/p/let-me-teach-you-how-to-defend-the-e63

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