Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604970

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted 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

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

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “Roads are major sources of sediment from timber operations”
    • “Mitigation can reduce — but not eliminate — these effects”
    • “Eastern and Southern Regions are most susceptible to additional impacts”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “diminish primitive recreation, scenery and solitude”
    • “alter special places to which people have a strong “place attachment””
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “More roads could increase human-caused wildfire ignitions”
    • “additional wildfire-treatment capacity from rescission would likely be only “modest””

The comment

Here are some of the concerns that I would like to share that are based on the Forest Service’s own analysis Wildfire: More roads could increase human-caused wildfire ignitions, while the additional wildfire-treatment capacity from rescission would likely be only “modest.” (DEIS pp. 24, 225) Water: Roads are major sources of sediment from timber operations. Mitigation can reduce — but not eliminate — these effects, and the Eastern and Southern Regions are most susceptible to additional impacts. (DEIS pp. 111, 122–23) Wild character: Rescission could diminish primitive recreation, scenery and solitude and alter special places to which people have a strong “place attachment.” (DEIS pp. 224–26) Importantly, the current Roadless Rule already contains exceptions allowing certain road construction and timber cutting for public safety, resource protection, ecosystem restoration and other purposes. (DEIS p. 14) The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) notes that the Forest Service estimates it already has at least 20,000 problematic road-stream crossings nationwide, which SELC estimates would cost at least $1.2 billion to address. Please take into account these factors and reconsider this misguided legislation. Respectfully yours, Sam Rodman

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