Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606049

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “protect clean water and wildlife”
    • “connected habitat that grizzly bears, elk, and other wildlife use”
    • “fragment wildlife corridors”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “protect clean water”
    • “degrade headwater streams”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “protections took years of public process”
    • “removed through a short comment window with no public hearings”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “economic value these areas bring to nearby communities through recreation and tourism”
    • “value that depends on their staying wild”

What it names

National Forests
Gallatin National Forest
Roadless areas
Green Mountain

The comment

Comment on RIN 0596-AD66: Retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I urge the Department to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. My connection to these lands spans the country. I lived in Vermont, where the Green Mountain National Forest holds the largest roadless areas in the state. Those intact hardwood forests protect clean water and wildlife in a region where wild land is scarce. My family owns property in Montana just outside Yellowstone, next to the Custer Gallatin National Forest. Its roadless lands are part of the connected habitat that grizzly bears, elk, and other wildlife use to move across the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Breaking that habitat up with roads would harm the very thing that makes the region extraordinary. And as an avid explorer of Wisconsin's parks and forests, I value the roadless areas of the Chequamegon-Nicolet as some of the last undeveloped forest in the Upper Midwest. The draft EIS does not adequately analyze how new roads would fragment wildlife corridors or degrade headwater streams. It also fails to account for the economic value these areas bring to nearby communities through recreation and tourism, value that depends on their staying wild. These protections took years of public process and more than a million comments to create. They should not be removed through a short comment window with no public hearings. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Rule. Maureen Gribble, Wilmette, Illinois

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