Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-605119

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that Section 294.13 of the existing rule already permits tree thinning and emergency fire access, thereby refuting the claim that current protections hinder wildfire control, and requests the adoption of the 'no action alternative' to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect our public lands”
- “threaten forests and natural places”
- “wildlife and ecosystems that depend on these wild lands”
- “intact forests”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect watersheds”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “drive a thriving recreation economy”
- “frequent many national forests”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “Undeveloped forests requester carbon”

What it names

National Forests: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Tahoe National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceLegal

My name is Brooke Clayton. I live is Stateline, Nevada and frequent many national forests in the area including the Humboldt-Toiyabe, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, El Dorado, and Tahoe National Forest. I am writing this to urge protection for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule to protect our public lands. Rescinding the protections under this rule will threaten forests and natural places that provide innumerable benefits to human’s physical and mental health- let alone all the wildlife and ecosystems that depend on these wild lands. Public lands make America special. They drive a thriving recreation economy. They are a representation of our country’s commitment to wellbeing over profits. Undeveloped forests requester carbon, protect watersheds, and remind us of a world where nature and people thrive together. The arguments laid out in the proposition to rescind this rule are flawed. They are largely made by those with interests in the logging industry who would profit from less protection. Wildfire control is managed well with the current protections, in fact, section 294.13 already permits tree thinning and emergency fire access. I personally know many people who have worked on wildland fire crews and still oppose the proposed changes. They are able to perform their jobs well under the current protections and also love to see intact forests, recognizing the way they also contribute to healthy ecosystems. Please choose the “no action alternative” and vote to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact.