Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-285489

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 29, 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
- “value of forests and undisturbed land for the millions of recreational users is beyond measure”
- “outdoor industry generates $730 billion annually”
- “Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, camping”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “critical habitat for many species of plants and animals”
- “critical to our nation's ecological health”
- “American citizens, forests, and wildlife deserve to have areas free of roads”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “These roads would accelerate climate change”
- “20% of all carbon in the U.S. national forests is in the roadless areas”
- “Wildfires are increasingly common in the West as drought continues and climate change impacts forests”
Water Quality Quantity
- “watersheds of drinking water for over 60 million people”
- “critical to our nation's ecological health”

What it names

Roadless areas: Liberty BellNorse PeakTeanaway

The comment

I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Alternative 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement). The Roadless Rule should remain in place. As a recreational user of the National Forests in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, I can say that the value of forests and undisturbed land for the millions of recreational users is beyond measure. The outdoor industry generates $730 billion annually. This is far more than any timber sales would generate. The US Forest Service already has 370,000 miles of roads and is increasingly unable to manage and maintain the existing roads. The maintenance backlog continues to grow. Wildfires are increasingly common in the West as drought continues and climate change impacts forests. Roadless areas are NOT more prone to fire. 88% of wildfires occur within .5 miles of a road. Additional roads will lead to more fires. These roads would accelerate climate change in that 20% of all carbon in the U.S. national forests is in the roadless areas. As an avid hiker, I know well many of the areas that would be impacted by this senseless change. Earlier this spring, I took three separate day hikes in the Teanaway Roadless Area northeast of Cle Elum, Washington. Earl Peak and Bean Creek Basin were closed because of fires from the year before. How can we bear more damage to this valley. As a frequent user of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, I know that Grasshopper Meadows and Tatie Peak in the North Cascades/Pasayten Liberty Bell Roadless Area would be ruined by further roadbuilding. The Norse Peak Roadless Area near Crystal Mountain and Mount Rainier is another area we frequent-- these are beautiful places close to a major metropolitan area-- American citizens, forests, and wildlife deserve to have areas free of roads. These areas provide critical habitat for many species of plants and animals, and are critical to our nation’s ecological health, not to mention watersheds of drinking water for over 60 million people. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would affect 11% of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in areas adjacent to it. Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is wrong in every possible way.