Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-257187

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted August 23, 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
    • “critical habitats for endangered and threatened species”
    • “keeping these ecosystems whole and resilient”
    • “pristine, undeveloped national forest land”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “safeguard the clean drinking water sources”
    • “protect vital salmon-spawning streams”
    • “Watershed Protection”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “capture and store carbon”
    • “natural defense against climate change”
    • “mature and old-growth forests intact”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “quiet, natural landscapes”
    • “recreation and mental well-being”
    • “supports local tourism, recreation businesses”

What it names

National Forests
Olympic National Forest

The comment

Dear USDA Forest Service Leadership,I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in Washington State. Rescinding these protections threatens nearly two million acres of pristine, undeveloped national forest land that is vital to our environment, economy, and community well-being.As a Washington resident who frequently camps and hikes in the Olympic National Forest, I have a deep personal connection to these public lands. I know firsthand how irreplaceable these wild, roadless spaces are. Allowing logging, mining, and road construction into these pristine backcountry areas will permanently destroy the quiet, natural landscapes that I and thousands of others rely on for recreation and mental well-being.I urge you to maintain the current Roadless Rule protections for the following reasons:Ecological Integrity: Washington’s roadless areas provide critical habitats for endangered and threatened species, keeping these ecosystems whole and resilient.Watershed Protection: These undeveloped lands safeguard the clean drinking water sources for millions of Washington residents and protect vital salmon-spawning streams.Climate Resilience: Leaving these mature and old-growth forests intact ensures they can continue to capture and store carbon, serving as a natural defense against climate change.Economic Value: Outdoor recreation is a major economic driver in Washington. Keeping these areas wild supports local tourism, recreation businesses, and public health.Please reject this proposal and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule to protect the Olympic National Forest and Washington’s other irreplaceable wild forests for current and future generations. Sincerely,Markos Sauri Federal Way, WA 98023

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