Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-424669

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 16, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

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
    • “concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity”
    • “Roads can fragment habitats, hurting animal behavioral patterns”
    • “rich ecosystems that have innumerable benefits”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds”
    • “Runoff from poorly managed roads can significantly damage ecosystems”
    • “affect habitats, leading to the death of animals and plants”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and camping”
    • “opportunities for people to learn about and appreciate nature”
    • “value its immense beauty - towering mountains, snow-capped, pristine alpine lakes”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule”
    • “select the No Action Alternative”
    • “How would USDA ensure that roadless values are protected through individual forest plans”

What it names

National Forests
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Roadless areas
Lake Fork

The comment

I am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and camping. I value these lands because provide invaluable sustainable research capabilities, opportunities for people to learn about and appreciate nature, and rich ecosystems that have innumerable benefits. Eagle Cap Wilderness is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Lake Fork Inventoried Roadless Area in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. I value its immense beauty - towering mountains, snow-capped, pristine alpine lakes, birds and wildlife. I value its unique landscape and would hate for it to be overridden with roads. I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. The fact that the existing road systems face constant neglect from the Forest Service raises concerns about expansion. Degraded roads can severely hurt and damage ecosystems, so expanding it would be detrimental not only to where new roads are constructed but to where old roads continue facing neglect. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Roads can fragment habitats, hurting animal behavioral patterns. Additionally, roads can increase human access, meaning that development projects might begin in the newly accessed areas. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Runoff from poorly managed roads can significantly damage ecosystems and affect habitats, leading to the death of animals and plants. I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. If the Roadless Rule were to be repealed, it would set a national precedent for the removal of conservation and protection acts, potentially leading to even more habitat and ecosystem destruction. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA ensure that roadless values are protected through individual forest plans and project-level decisions if the national rule is removed? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless