Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609163

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 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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “lasting protection for these long-established habitats”
    • “creating further habitat fragmentation”
    • “increasing the opportunities for invasive species to spread”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “increase the opportunity for sediment runoff”
    • “impact the health of our waterways”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “negatively affect... wildfire risk”
    • “human-caused wildfire ignitions”
    • “human-caused ignitions increase with proximity to roads”
  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “majority of the roads would be used solely for logging”
    • “short-term benefit of logging potential”

The comment

I oppose Alternative 2 and support Alternative 1, no change to the existing 2001 Roadless Rule, and continued, nationwide prohibitions for inventoried roadless areas to provide lasting protection for these long-established habitats. Receding this rule will negatively affect wildlife and wildfire risk by creating further habitat fragmentation, increasing the opportunities for invasive species to spread, and could result in more wildfires. On pages 89–90 of the Draft EIS, the Forest Service reports much higher rates of human-caused wildfire ignitions on other National Forest lands than in affected roadless areas and states that human-caused ignitions increase with proximity to roads. Removing nationwide road-building restrictions would increase human-caused ignition and invasive species risk. The proposal cites increased access for recreation, but does not address the many poorly maintained roads that already exist. Furthermore, I am concerned that the majority of the roads would be used solely for logging in currently protected habitat and would not be created with recreation in mind. More roads also increase the opportunity for sediment runoff during rain events and could impact the health of our waterways. I support Alternative 1 (no change) and believe that the short-term benefit of logging potential is not worth the long-term harm this repeal would cause to our nation and its roadless areas.

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