Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-333383

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “avid hiker and horseback rider”
- “enjoy the shrinking solitude”
- “quiet trail of gentle incline”
- “depriving citizens of thousands of user days per year”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “intrinsic and irreplaceable values”
- “Bear, deer, and elk are common here”
- “destroyed in an instant by commercial or industrial development”
- “roadless gem”
Governance Policy Process
- “Executive Orders directing federal agencies”
- “without regard to the local expertise”
- “long-term planning, and decision-making”
- “full-scale assault on the backcountry without any sound reasoning”

What it names

National Forests: Lewis and Clark National Forest

The comment

I am writing in support of Alternative 1, the No Action alternative that keeps the Roadless Rule and its land protections in place. I am an avid hiker and horseback rider, and member of Back Country Horsemen. In Montana, where I live, the fate of 6 million acres of backcountry lands are at stake under the proposed rule. These are lands where we ride, pack, hike, volunteer, maintain trails, and enjoy the shrinking solitude available on the Planet. We aren't simply advocating for our interests. We who volunteer to maintain trails in cooperation with public agencies continue to pay our dues in keeping America's roadless lands open for all to enjoy. We've earned credibility through hard work, Of particular concern to me is the nature of this change: It is an Executive Orders directing federal agencies to reduce regulatory protections, increase timber production, and expand development on federal lands without regard to the local expertise, long-term planning, and decision-making that currently exists at the regional and local level. It feels like a full-scale assault on the backcountry without any sound reasoning. Specifically, I am deeply concerned about losing roadless protections for areas such as the Little Blackfoot Meadows area on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. This roadless gem lies a 45-minute drive from Helena, MT, yet provides a quiet trail of gentle incline along a 4-mile stretch of meandering creek amidst a forest canopy of pines and aspen. Bear, deer, and elk are common here, and it's a great place to take a kid to fish. I have ridden horses here, camped at the cabin, taken out-of-state relatives hiking, and maintained and built trails in this area, as well as advocated for its protection. The intrinsic and irreplaceable values of this roadless area could so easily be destroyed in an instant by commercial or industrial development, depriving citizens of thousands of user days per year in a beloved place. Little Blackfoot Meadows is but one of hundreds of roadless areas we have known and loved. Please don't destroy their essence under a revised rule.