Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608488

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 Analytical gap, Evidence.

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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “addition of more roads would increase the risk of wildfires”
    • “vectors like vehicle sparks and human activity”
    • “Forest Service's own draft Environmental impact study”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “preserving roadless areas for recreational use”
    • “experience natural areas free of the noise and pollution”
    • “preserve their natural spaces from incursion”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “returning power to responsive local officials”
    • “difficult for citizens to monitor or influence them”
    • “vulnerable to pressures from powerful interests”

The comment

Hello, I’m a citizen of Portland OR and I oppose the rescinding of the roadless rule. One of the reasons given for rescinding the rule is to allow greater fire protection. But the Forest Service’s own draft Environmental impact study found that the addition of more roads would increase the risk of wildfires through vectors like vehicle sparks and human activity. Furthermore, preserving roadless areas for recreational use is a worthwhile purpose. The ability to experience natural areas free of the noise and pollution that accompanies roads is one of the things our country has to be proud of and is one of the ways we stand out from countries that have failed to preserve their natural spaces from incursion. As for returning power to responsive local officials and governments, it can be difficult for citizens to monitor or influence them, and they can be vulnerable to pressures from powerful interests.

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