Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-442286

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 17, 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
- “Supply 50% of California's drinking water”
- “Roadless areas keep our forests healthy”
- “ecological backbone of our national forest lands”
Wildlife Habitat
- “Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox”
- “our wildlife and more”
- “health, cultural, and environmental impacts”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting”
- “take in their beauty”
- “integral part to the culture of California”
Cultural Heritage Indigenous
- “Support Tribal cultural practices”
- “cultural impacts of this rescinding”

What it names

National Forests: Inyo National Forest

The comment

As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. On a personal note, I’ve lived in the Sacramento area for over 4 years now and been exposed to an incredible wealth of natural forestry in various areas. I recently returned from a trip along the eastern Sierras that included many forests and other lush natural scenery such as Inyo National Forest and Yosemite National Park. I was in utter awe at what the Earth is capable of, and felt very privileged to venture to these places and take in their beauty. Natural wonders such as these and the countless others across the state are an integral part to the culture of California. I’m honored to call California my home now, and the rescinding of the Roadless Rule would be devastating to a place I now consider familiar and incredible. Beyond just me, the health, cultural, and environmental impacts of this rescinding would hurt all Californians and Americans in ways described above. It would be shameful if our legislative institutions lost sight of what contributes to America being a marvel of natural scenery, especially for something as short-sighted as developments for gain or profit. The Earth is our home, the only home we’ve ever known and it has provided us with the wonder of life. We owe it to the Earth, as we owe everything to the Earth, and the beauty of Earth should absolutely be preserved. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Zane Warden Sacramento, CA 95818