Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608996

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 8/24Owed 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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.

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.
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.
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.

Topics

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “preserves the diversity of plants and animals”
- “endangered wildlife, and sensitive species require undisturbed land”
- “detrimental effects on ecosystem health including watershed health, forest health, and biodiversity”
- “likely to adversely affect 327 endangered listed species”
Water Quality Quantity
- “detrimental to preserving soil, water, and air”
- “helps keep our drinking water clean with less run off from vehicles”
- “detrimental effects on ecosystem health including watershed health”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “creating beautiful undisturbed backcountry for recreation use and enjoyment”
- “We want to keep this land natural and preserve it for generations to come”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “costs $80k to $100k per mile at the minimum”
- “projected logging revenue gain from opening the logging areas is only $4 to $12 million a year”
- “cost for the amount of roads needed would far outspend the amount being made”
- “$7 to $8.4 billion dollar backlog for the Forest Service's own figures for road maintainance”

What it names

Law cited: Executive Order 14153 Executive Order 14154 Executive Order 14192 Executive Order 14225

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

Hello, I am commenting to say that I, like many other americans, wish to keep the Roadless Rule in place and unchanged. The Roadless Rule is detrimental to preserving soil, water, and air. It helps keep our drinking water clean with less run off from vehicles. It preserves the diversity of plants and animals by not cutting through ecosystems. Many habitats, endandered wildlife, and sensitive species require undisturbed land to thrive. The Roadless Rule has been a boon to human activity as well, creating beautiful undisturbed backcountry for recreation use and enjoyment. The proposal reasoning for recission are shoddy at best. The executive orders signed by Trump are unlawful. I greatly oppose executive order 14192. We need regulations to keep corporations in check from greedily taking more than they should and also for more responsible land management. We need regulations to keep our air, soil, and water clean. I oppose executive order 14225 for logging expansion. Our forests have dwindled enough. We should be looking into more sustainable options than lumber for our paper and wood use. Bamboo, hemp, and other plant materials grow faster with less water and land used. We need to pivot from our addiction to timber production. I oppose executive order 14154 for rescinding restrictions on coal and gas. Again, not sustainable for the long term. We should be shifting to nuclear, wind, geothermal, and of course solar. These alternatives don't create the same level of pollution and long term destruction of land for short term gain. I oppose executive order 14153 for opening up Alaska for drilling and timber sales. These wildlife areas are extremely detrimental to millions of birds, both migratory and fixed populations. It would affect game animals, predators and prey animals both, all the way up the food chain. We want to keep this land natural and preserve it for generations to come. Oil is a dying energy, switch to sustainable alternatives already! I greatly oppose the National Active Forest Management Strategy and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act 50301 for the increase of timber production by 25%, we can NOT sustain that. The amount of roads put in to harvest would also cost more than the timber production. We need to harvest less wood, and switch to alternatives mentioned above. We do NOT need more roads. Roads start more fires than they put out, by around seven times more. Putting in the roads would only increase access by around 3% total. The agency Roads cost money and the DEIS states it costs $80k to $100k per mile at the minimum, plus $5k to $50k per mile for yearly maintainace. The projected logging revenue gain from opening the logging areas is only $4 to $12 million a year nation wide. The DEIS does not show these numbers side by side, but when you do the math, the cost for the amount of roads needed would far outspend the amount being made. We already can't afford the roads we have, with a $7 to $8.4 billion dollar backlog for the Forest Service's own figures for road maintainance. There is no plan for maintaining these, as well as all the new roads being proposed. There has also been the finding by the agency's own analysis, showing “detrimental effects on ecosystem health including watershed health, forest health, and biodiversity.” In the biological assessment of the rescission shows it “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” 327 endangered listed species, as well as critical designated habitats. That alone should be the reason to stop trying to rescind the roadless rule. I wish to close with the following comments. I see nothing but short term greed that will have dire longterm consequences. If you care for the future of this planet, if at least for your children's sake, you will not support the rescission of the roadless rule as well. We share this planet, not just with our fellow man, but with all the nature of this world that keeps us alive. We will thrive as a species working together with nature rather than trying to control and extort nature. Have a care for this world instead of money. Do not disappoint the people, we all will be watching.