Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-354116

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 12, 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

Water Quality Quantity
- “protect critical upper watersheds”
- “supplies California's drinking and irrigation waters”
- “degrading water quality”
- “critical to providing late summer water”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Outdoor recreation... is increasing rapidly”
- “backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding”
- “I hike extensively on and off trail”
- “majority of citizens support strong protections”
Wildlife Habitat
- “Roadless areas shelter imperiled species”
- “Northern Spotted Owl breeding ranges”
- “ecological backbone of our national forest lands”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “more roads within our forests means more wildfire risk”
- “most human-caused fires occur near roads”
- “can't properly maintain the existing road network”

What it names

National Forests: Shasta-Trinity National Forest

The comment

Regarding the review of the Roadless Rule established decades ago, I support Alternative 1: The “No Action Alternative." As a citizen who enjoys living in a community surrounded by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, I feel the nation should keep the Roadless Rule intact and protect our public lands for the benefit of current and future citizens. Keeping the Roadless Rule intact keeps options open for Congress to consider the management of these lands in the future. I understand we need trees for lumber, but locally there is plenty timber from the logging occurring on private timberland. Roadless areas help protect critical upper watersheds for the Trinity, Shasta, and Sacramento Rivers, as well as critical tributaries like Castle Creek. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands that supplies California’s drinking and irrigation waters. I hike extensively on and off trail in the USFS lands along the Trinity Divide in Siskiyou, Trinity, and Shasta counties. There are small springs and pocket meadows, too many to count, that are critical to providing late summer water for these rivers. Outdoor recreation, including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting, is increasing rapidly on our public lands. Polls show the majority of citizens support strong protections for our collective public lands. Roadless areas shelter imperiled species. Here locally, the roadless areas near the Castle Crags Wilderness have been documented to support two Northern Spotted Owl breeding ranges with annual nesting success. Studies repeatedly show that more roads within our forests means more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. Additionally, the USFS has hundreds of thousands of mile roads and can't properly maintain the existing road network. Unmaintained roads continue to erode and add sediments to our rivers and stream, degrading water quality. We don't need more poorly maintained roads. The large roadless areas on Mount Eddy in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest need to remain intact. Congress did not include Mount Eddy in the national Wilderness System during the previous rounds of wilderness review due to the numerous private land inholdings within the roadless area. In the past couple of decades, the USFS has been actively acquiring the private land inholdings on Mount Eddy through Land and Conservation Fund purchases and by large land trades with the timberland companies. These lands need to be retained as roadless until Congress can consider them for inclusion in the Wilderness System. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.