Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-403294

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 15, 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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect clean water, wildlife habitat, healthy ecosystems”
- “habitat fragmentation, erosion, and long-term damage”
- “Preserve strong nationwide protections for inventoried roadless areas”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “recreational opportunities, and the quiet, unspoiled landscapes”
- “support guides, outfitters, travel professionals, local businesses”
- “outdoor recreation and conservation-based tourism”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect clean water”
- “potential effects of rescission on clean water”
- “provide clean water”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “address wildfire risk and maintain healthy forests”
- “existing Roadless Rule already contains exceptions that allow necessary actions”
- “address legitimate wildfire, safety, and ecological restoration needs”

What it names

National Forests: Tongass National Forest

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 500 — Stated by the submitter: The number the submitter stated in the cover note, used where the files could not be read reliably.

Enclosed submissions

The comment

Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 — Opposition to Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to ask the U.S. Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative and retain these important nationwide protections. As a life coach, adventure travel coach, hiker, backpacker, and Leave No Trace partner, I have experienced firsthand the physical, emotional, and spiritual value of our nation’s wild places. I also help women, particularly women over 40, build the confidence to step outside their comfort zones and experience the transformational power of the outdoors. Roadless areas are not simply undeveloped parcels on a map. They protect clean water, wildlife habitat, healthy ecosystems, recreational opportunities, and the quiet, unspoiled landscapes that are becoming increasingly difficult to find. They also support guides, outfitters, travel professionals, local businesses, and rural communities that benefit from outdoor recreation and conservation-based tourism. I understand the need to address wildfire risk and maintain healthy forests. However, the existing Roadless Rule already contains exceptions that allow necessary actions, including certain wildfire-risk-reduction and forest-restoration work. The need for responsible forest management does not justify eliminating nationwide protections from approximately 45 million acres of National Forest System lands. Rescinding the rule could expose these lands to additional road construction, commercial logging, habitat fragmentation, erosion, and long-term damage. Once roads are built and these landscapes are altered, their roadless character may never be fully restored. I respectfully ask the Forest Service to: Retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the “No Action” alternative. Preserve strong nationwide protections for inventoried roadless areas, including the Tongass National Forest. Use the existing exceptions within the rule to address legitimate wildfire, safety, and ecological restoration needs. Fully evaluate the potential effects of rescission on clean water, wildlife, recreation, climate resilience, Indigenous cultural resources, and local outdoor-recreation economies. Consider alternatives that improve forest health without opening millions of acres to permanent road construction and large-scale commercial development. Attached are approximately 500 signatures from individuals who joined me in asking that the Roadless Rule remain in place. These signatures represent people who believe our remaining wild forests deserve meaningful and lasting protection. I respectfully request that you include this petition in the administrative record and consider it as part of the Forest Service’s decision-making process. We have a responsibility to protect these public lands not only for those who enjoy them today, but also for the generations who will come after us. Progress should not require sacrificing the wild places that provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, healing, and connection. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Respectfully submitted, Esbenia