Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-394715

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 14, 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
- “critical, undisturbed habitat for wildlife”
- “sensitive, threatened, and endangered species”
- “Road building fragments habitat”
- “old growth and undisturbed habitat cannot simply be restored”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect clean drinking water sources”
- “increases erosion and sedimentation into streams and watersheds”
- “health of the land and water my community depends on”
- “put wildlife and water quality at risk”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “last largely undisturbed forest ecosystems”
- “introduces invasive species”
- “preserve some of the only remaining truly wild places”
- “ecological damage is largely permanent”
Governance Policy Process
- “removes the uniform, science-based baseline protection”
- “Handing this decision-making down to individual forest-level planning processes”
- “opens the door to inconsistent, piecemeal decisions”
- “retaining the full protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule”

What it names

National Forests: Mark Twain National Forest

The comment

Re: RIN 0596-AD66 — Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Inventoried roadless areas represent some of the last largely undisturbed forest ecosystems on National Forest System lands, and removing national-level protections would open these areas to road construction and timber harvesting with consequences that cannot be easily undone. Roadless areas provide critical, undisturbed habitat for wildlife, including many sensitive, threatened, and endangered species that depend on large unfragmented tracts of forest to survive. Road building fragments habitat, increases erosion and sedimentation into streams and watersheds, introduces invasive species, and increases human access that leads to poaching, disturbance, and further habitat degradation. These are not hypothetical risks — they are well-documented effects of road construction in forested ecosystems. These lands also protect clean drinking water sources, store carbon, and preserve some of the only remaining truly wild places available to the public. Once roads are built and these areas are logged, the ecological damage is largely permanent — old growth and undisturbed habitat cannot simply be restored on any timeframe that matters to the species living there now. As a longtime resident of the Ozarks near Sparta, Missouri, I live close to Mark Twain National Forest and its inventoried roadless areas. These wild places are not abstract to me — they are part of the landscape I've lived alongside my whole life, and they matter directly to the health of the land and water my community depends on. Handing this decision-making down to individual forest-level planning processes removes the uniform, science-based baseline protection that has kept these areas intact for over two decades, and opens the door to inconsistent, piecemeal decisions that put wildlife and water quality at risk across the country. I urge the USDA to withdraw this proposal and retain the full protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Diamond AnoNuevo Sparta MO