Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602812

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “avid outdoor recreationist”
- “regularly hike, hunt, and camp”
- “quiet, undeveloped spaces required for quality hiking, hunting, and camping”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “rationale that removing roadless protections will mitigate wildfire risk is fundamentally flawed”
- “vast majority ignite near roads”
- “Carving new roads into our last intact wildlands will inherently increase wildfire risks”
Water Quality Quantity
- “pristine waters”
- “preserve essential watersheds that provide clean drinking water”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “critical wildlife corridors”
- “fragile, life-sustaining ecosystems”
- “protect biodiversity”

The comment

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 (RIN 0596-AD66) Copy and paste this finalized text into the Regulations.gov Roadless Rule Comment Page: I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid outdoor recreationist who frequently visits and relies on public lands, I am deeply concerned about the devastating impacts this rollback will have. I regularly hike, hunt, and camp in national forests across Western Montana, Arizona, and Southern California, including the Lolo, Flathead, Bitterroot, Coconino, and Cleveland National Forests. These specific landscapes are irreplaceable to me for these backcountry activities. The agency’s rationale that removing roadless protections will mitigate wildfire risk is fundamentally flawed and contradicts established science. Roughly 85% to 90% of wildfires are human-caused, and the vast majority ignite near roads. Carving new roads into our last intact wildlands will inherently increase wildfire risks to nearby communities, not reduce them. This is especially dangerous in wildfire-prone landscapes like Southern California and the drought-stressed forests of Arizona and Montana. Furthermore, the Forest Service already faces a massive multi-billion-dollar road maintenance backlog. Expanding infrastructure into roadless areas is a fiscally irresponsible burden that the agency cannot afford. From the critical wildlife corridors and pristine waters of the Lolo, Flathead, and Bitterroot, to the fragile, life-sustaining ecosystems of the Coconino and Cleveland, roadless areas are vital. They preserve essential watersheds that provide clean drinking water, protect biodiversity, and offer the quiet, undeveloped spaces required for quality hiking, hunting, and camping that are vanishing elsewhere. I urge the Forest Service to reject this rescission entirely, maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule, and protect these specific forests for future generations.