Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-328176

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 7, 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “protect wildlife habitat”
- “support many diverse and vulnerable or endangered species”
- “harm... wildlife”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect drinking water sources”
- “forests to act as natural filters”
- “harm water quality”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “offer hiking, hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities”
- “without roads damaging the forest environment”
- “harm... recreational opportunities”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “construction and use of roads... increase... fire ignition risk”
- “Most wildfires are started by people”
- “reduce wildfire risk”

What it names

National Forests: Ozark-St. Francis National Forest

The comment

I reside in the state of Missouri. Missouri is a land of beautiful forest lands, including the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. Ninety-five thousand acres of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest are designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas that are protected by the current federal Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule was put in place to protect wildlife habitat to support many diverse and vulnerable or endangered species, to allow forests to act as natural filters and protect drinking water sources, and to offer hiking, hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities without roads damaging the forest environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposal to rescind the entire Roadless Rule would negatively impact the National Forest in Missouri and other forests throughout the nation by allowing new home building, commercial timber harvesting and other industrial activities in the Inventoried Roadless Areas. The USDA argues that this change would reduce wildfire risk and improve local forest management flexibility. However, research has shown that construction and use of roads through forest lands increase human activity and fire ignition risk. Most wildfires are started by people, not by the forests themselves. Allowing logging and other commercial activities in the forest areas could harm water quality, wildlife, and recreational opportunities. Please keep the existing 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and prohibit road construction, reconstruction and timber harvesting across all inventoried Roadless Areas, with the current narrow exceptions of public health and safety emergencies, valid existing rights, and active mineral leases. Our National Forests deserve our protection so that they can continue to serve and protect our environment.