Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602181

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted 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
- “Roadless national forests act as natural filtration systems”
- “supplying clean drinking water to more than 60 million Americans”
- “Clean Water”
Wildlife Habitat
- “impact that new roads will have on the ecosystems”
- “critical corridors and refuges for hundreds of at-risk and imperiled species”
- “Wildlife Habitat”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “frequently recreates on public land”
- “support robust local outdoor recreation economies”
- “economic vitality of my small tourist community hinges on the protection of these pristine places”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “Intact forests sequester carbon effectively”
- “Climate and Recreation Resilience”

What it names

National Forests: Caribou-Targhee National Forest

The comment

Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) Dear Forest Service Officials, I am a resident of Driggs, ID and someone who frequently recreates on public land, mostly in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness and Caribou-Targhee National Forest. I am writing to strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For a quarter of a century, this rule has successfully protected roughly 45 million acres of pristine national forest lands from commercial logging and new road construction. I am concerned about the impact that new roads will have on the ecosystems that so many species depends on. I think it is short-sighted and dangerous to rescind safeguards that threaten vital public resources: • Clean Water: Roadless national forests act as natural filtration systems, supplying clean drinking water to more than 60 million Americans across thousands of communities. • Wildlife Habitat: These untouched landscapes provide critical corridors and refuges for hundreds of at-risk and imperiled species. • Climate and Recreation Resilience: Intact forests sequester carbon effectively and support robust local outdoor recreation economies. Furthermore, the justification that removing protections improves wildfire management is flawed and contradicted by existing science and maintenance backlog realities. Instead of opening these wild public lands to extractive industries, the agency should focus its capacity on maintaining existing infrastructure and prioritizing community safety. Furthermore, the economic vitality of my small tourist community hinges on the protection of these pristine places. To jeapordize them for the interests of commercial logging could have negative impacts on the economy of my small town. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this repeal and maintain full protections for our roadless national forests. Sincerely, Jennifer Piperno Driggs, ID 83422