Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-277329

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 27, 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
- “hiking and backpacking, trail volunteering, camping”
- “Roadless areas matter to me for recreation”
- “The feeling of remoteness is not the same with cars and roads”
- “children's opportunities to experience them”
Wildlife Habitat
- “concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity”
- “wildlife needs land with minimal human intrusion”
- “let some Wildlands remain truly wild”
Water Quality Quantity
- “concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds”
- “drink regularly from backcountry streams”
- “hope that these watersheds will remain pure and untouched”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system”
- “long-term cost of maintaining, reconstructing, and eventually decommissioning additional roads”
- “other, far more pressing concerns about our national infrastructure”

What it names

National Forests: Colville National Forest

The comment

I live in White Salmon, WA and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, trail volunteering, camping, professional work in the outdoors, living in or near a National Forest community, and operating or working for a business connected to public lands. The world is a better place if we let some Wildlands remain truly wild. Mount Bonaparte is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Bonaparte Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area in Colville National Forest. The scenery and remoteness is truly awe inspiring. I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. There are other, far more pressing concerns about our national infrastructure than building new Forest Service roads. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. In order to thrive, the wildlife needs land with minimal human intrusion. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. I drink regularly from backcountry streams, and I hope that these watersheds will remain pure and untouched. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. The feeling of remoteness is not the same with cars and roads. I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. Please consider how truly unnecessary this is. I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. This is public land, not private timber land. I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. We need to consider future generations here; we would be potentially taking away the few roadless areas that exist today and our children’s opportunities to experience them. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA account for the long-term cost of maintaining, reconstructing, and eventually decommissioning additional roads? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.