Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-225407

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 20, 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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “avid outdoor recreationist”
    • “hiking, backpacking, fishing, and backcountry skiing”
    • “permanently destroy the backcountry skiing zones, pristine fishing streams, and quiet trails”
    • “drive the outdoor recreation economy”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “essential wildlife habitat”
    • “Roadless areas act as biological strongholds”
    • “critical migration corridors and undisturbed habitat for fish and wildlife”
    • “Constructing roads fragments these ecosystems”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “degrades water quality for fisheries”
    • “pristine fishing streams”

What it names

National Forests
Inyo National Forest

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

See attached file(s) To: U.S. Forest Service Re: Public Comment on Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (Docket No. FS-2025-0001) I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid outdoor recreationist, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to maintain these critical protections for our nation's remaining wild places, which are irreplaceable hubs for outdoor recreation and essential wildlife habitat. On a personal level, undeveloped public lands are central to my life. I spend much of my free time hiking, backpacking, fishing, and backcountry skiing. While I travel across America seeking out the solitude and adventure that only intact wilderness areas can provide, my deepest connection is to the Eastern Sierra and the Inyo National Forest. In fact, my wife and I chose to get married on Inyo National Forest land. The fondest memories I share with my wife, my family, and my friends have been forged in the backcountry. Repealing the Roadless Rule would jeopardize the very values that make these lands so meaningful to my family and millions of other Americans: •Preserving Recreation and Solitude: Substantive backcountry recreation relies on vast, quiet landscapes. Introducing roads, logging, and industrial development into inventoried roadless areas would permanently destroy the backcountry skiing zones, pristine fishing streams, and quiet trails that drive the outdoor recreation economy and provide vital spaces for human renewal. •Protecting Crucial Wildlife Habitat: Roadless areas act as biological strongholds. They provide critical migration corridors and undisturbed habitat for fish and wildlife. Constructing roads fragments these ecosystems, degrades water quality for fisheries, and intensifies pressure on vulnerable species. Inventoried roadless areas represent a well-balanced, time-tested policy that protects our natural heritage while allowing for traditional backcountry access. Protecting these lands ensures that future generations can experience the same unbroken landscapes and wild adventures that have shaped my life. Thank you for considering my comments. I strongly urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Ryan Long Oceanside, CA 92058

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