Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600062

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Posted October 7, 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

Water Quality Quantity
- “detriment to our drinking water”
- “protect our wild places”
Wildlife Habitat
- “speed the endangerment and extinction of our wild species”
- “preserve these wild places”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “increase the chances of forest fires”
- “Most human-caused forest fires are from roads”
- “unprecedented wildfire seasons”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “As a trail runner, avid hiker, and fisherwoman”
- “rely on these spaces for a chance to get out in nature”

The comment

Please protect our wild places. Rescinding the roadless rule will cause detriment to our drinking water, speed the endangerment and extinction of our wild species, and increase the chances of forest fires. The Forest Service already has a backlog of roads that they are unable to maintain, and an insufficient budget to do so. Most human-caused forest fires are from roads, and we already have unprecedented wildfire seasons, only getting worse with drought and climate change. Opening up these fragile areas to more human destruction has no positive effect, only negative, for us, our futures, and the future generations. Please help preserve these wild places for our children’s children, and stop making rash decisions that continue to destroy the planet. As a trail runner, avid hiker, and fisherwoman, I personally love and rely on these spaces for a chance to get out in nature. I cannot be the last generation that gets to enjoy them. Thank you for your consideration.