Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608971

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted 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

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
- “preserving biodiversity”
- “critical habitat for over 500 imperiled species”
- “protect our national forests, endangered species”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protecting our water resources”
- “headwaters for major rivers that supply drinking water”
- “risk introducing significant water pollution”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “rescinding the roadless rule would actually increase wildfire risk”
- “wildfires are four times more likely in areas with roads”
- “contradicts the justification being used to push this harmful proposal”
Governance Policy Process
- “21-day public comment period”
- “short timeline is inadequate”
- “advocate for an extended public comment period”

What it names

National Forests: Black Hills National Forest

The comment

Hello, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration's proposal to rescind the nation's landmark roadless rule. This misguided action would open nearly 45 million acres of pristine national forests to road construction, logging, and other destructive development. The consequences of this decision would be far-reaching and devastating for our environment, wildlife, and communities. The roadless rule has been instrumental in preserving biodiversity and protecting our water resources. These untouched forests provide critical habitat for over 500 imperiled species and serve as the headwaters for major rivers that supply drinking water to more than 60 million people across 33 states. By allowing road construction, we risk introducing significant water pollution to these vital water sources. Contrary to the administration's claims, rescinding the roadless rule would actually increase wildfire risk. Scientific studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely in areas with roads compared to roadless forest tracts. This fact directly contradicts the justification being used to push this harmful proposal forward. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a notice of intent with only a 21-day public comment period on issues to be considered in the proposed rule. This short timeline is inadequate for such a consequential decision. I urge you to advocate for an extended public comment period and to oppose this proposal when it comes before you. The final decision on this matter is anticipated in fall 2026, but action is needed now to prevent irreversible damage to our national forests. These forests are not just ecological treasures; they are also economic assets, supporting outdoor recreation industries and providing natural buffers against the impacts of climate change. I implore you to stand against the rescission of the roadless rule. Protect our national forests, endangered species, clean water, and the interests of the millions of Americans who benefit from these pristine wilderness areas. The legacy of our public lands and the health of our environment depend on your action to preserve the roadless rule. Thank you, Lindsay Born and raised in the Black Hills National Forest