Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-359285

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes a specific objection to the rescission of the Roadless Rule regarding Hardesty Mountain in the Umpqua National Forest, Oregon, documenting that the area contains old-growth forest distinct from clear-cut surroundings and that rescission would permit road construction and associated ground disturbance.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “conserving and protecting large tracts of wild lands”
- “diversity of ecosystems”
- “protect these areas for the enjoyment of future generations”
- “old growth forest”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water and air”
- “protecting large tracts of wild lands”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “recreation in unique and beautiful areas”
- “attracting people of all ages from across the globe”
- “small group hike through the old growth forest”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “economic benefit of attracting people of all ages from across the globe”

What it names

National Forests: Umpqua National Forest
Roadless areas: Hardesty Mountain

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Legal

I am writing to strongly oppose the rescinding of the Roadless Act. I am a 69 year old woman who understands the value of conserving and protecting large tracts of wild lands for many reasons: clean water and air, recreation in unique and beautiful areas, & the economic benefit of attracting people of all ages from across the globe. Once destroyed, our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of destroying these wilderness areas. Nature is essential to the human spirit. Regarding the Hardesty Mountain in the Umpqua National Forest, Oregon. I joined a small group hike through the old growth forest and it was unlike any other hike. The trees were enormous compared to any other area I’d hiked - and solely because they were not clear-cut as the majority of trees in this area have been. I believe it is essential to protect these areas for the enjoyment of future generations. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Hardesty Mountain, Umpqua National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Once gone, these wilderness areas will not regenerate to the size, health and diversity of ecosystems for centuries if ever. This loss is crushing to me and to most Americans. Nothing is worth their destruction. The forest service works for the people and a future generations of this country. The opinions and comments being submitted in favor of the continuation of the Roadless Rule must be the determining factor in any decision to rescind or minimize the Roadless Rule Act. Let the Roadless Rule stand. With gratitude.