Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-607162

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

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 12 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Carries the letter's score — A copy of a family's letter; it holds the score and answerability level of the letter it sent.

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. This rating is the one its shared letter earned.

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
- “wildlife habitat and connectivity”
- “sensitive/endangered/threatened species”
- “biodiversity”
- “cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road”
- “more roads mean more fires”
- “Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments”
- “landscape fire restoration”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water”
- “soil erosion”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “climate resilience”
- “Climate change”

What it names

Roadless areas: Coyote NorthGlass MountainIndependence CreekLaurel McgeeRock CreekSan JoaquinSoldier CanyonWheeler Ridge

The comment

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, climate resilience. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Roads will disconnect pieces of forest from one another, creating dangerous corridors where animals could be killed by machinery and construction equipment and fragmenting critical pieces of habitat. This is especially important for animals that live on large habitat ranges, like mountain lions and wolves These roadless areas are important to me because These are some of the most pristine forest areas that we are so lucky to still have, BECAUSE we have saved them from development. Adding roads through these forests will harm the animals who call it home, the Native communities who have a deep spiritual connection to the land, and everyone who values wild lands. These lands have value independent of the value that humans can extract from them, and repealing the Roadless Rule would spur in the face of that value. I also want to share this personal perspective: We, the people, collectively own these lands, but have placed them in the hands of the federal government to steward in trust. Repealing the roadless rule goes against what the people want, as you can see by the overwhelming amount of comments the USDA has received on this horrendous plan. These old growth forests cannot be replaced in 2 years when a new president takes over. These rule changes will have devastating and long-lasting consequences to the fragile lives of the animals who call these forests home. Please reconsider your decision to repeal the roadless rule. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."