Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-288287

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 31, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 14 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored with own additions — A family member whose own text beyond the shared letter was scored and combined with the letter's score.

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

Climate Carbon Storage
- “risks intact forests critical to tackling the climate crisis”
- “providing clean air and water”
- “preserves some of the most intact and resilient wildlands”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean drinking water for 1 in 10 Oregonians”
- “millions of Americans nationwide”
- “providing clean air and water to millions of people”
Wildlife Habitat
- “provide wildlife habitat”
- “jeopardize our forests and all they provide for humans and wildlife alike”
- “protect sacred sites and traditional foods for Indigenous communities”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads”
- “more roads means more wildfires”
- “roads also increase the spread of invasive species”

The comment

In my youth, I have seen the destruction from clearcut forests, fires, and homes destroyed by massive mud slides because the timber companies were allowed to clearcut our beloved redwood forests. DO NOT allow this to happen again!!! I write to you in strong opposition to USDA's proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rescinding this rule risks intact forests critical to tackling the climate crisis and providing clean air and water to millions of people. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. The Roadless Rule conserves wild areas for their ecological, recreational, and cultural value by protecting more than 58 million acres of our national forests from harmful logging and roadbuilding. The Rule is tremendously popular. Over the last three decades, millions of people from across the country have weighed in to support it. The Roadless Rule was created under the most extensive public comment process in the history of US federal rulemaking, and with 95% of commenters supporting protections. Last year, when the administration first announced this attempted rollback, over 600,000 people made their voices heard, and over 99% were in OPPOSITION to this administration's attempted rollbacks! The agency's proposal is also costly to American taxpayers. It's extremely expensive to build new logging roads in remote backcountry areas, plus the long-term maintenance for these rarely, if ever, used roads. The economics don't make sense. Meanwhile, these public lands support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry that would be severely impacted by logging and development. This bedrock environmental protection preserves some of the most intact and resilient wildlands that provide clean drinking water for 1 in 10 Oregonians, and millions of Americans nationwide. These public lands also provide wildlife habitat, boundless recreation, and protect sacred sites and traditional foods for Indigenous communities. We must uphold the Roadless Rule to protect these public lands now and for future generations. Building roads and clearcutting forests leave permanent damage to the landscape and ecosystem. Research also shows that wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads, so more roads mean more wildfires. Oregonians cannot afford more wildfires-- our communities are suffering too much already. Fighting fires in remote areas is also dangerous, expensive, and takes resources from protecting homes and communities. In addition to increased wildfire risk, roads also increase the spread of invasive species which further jeopardize our forests and all they provide for humans and wildlife alike. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. I urge USDA to take No Action on the Roadless Rule to keep current protections in place. Thank you for your consideration,