Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-456027

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 6/24Owed an answerPosted September 21, 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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.

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.
  • 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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “outdoor enthusiast”
    • “healing environment”
    • “connect to nature”
    • “improve mental, physical and spiritual health”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee”
    • “wildlife peacefully coexisting”
    • “road mortality”
    • “genetic isolation due to roads acting as barriers”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “clean air, water and soil”
    • “chronic sediment inputs”
    • “stream crossings”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “renders the DEIS inadequate under NEPA”
    • “administrative record must address”
    • “analysis is arbitrary”

What it names

National Forests
Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
Roadless areas
Mt. Baker West

The comment

Dear Ms. Rollins, The direct experience of national forest that remains outside the road system has shown me, as an outdoor enthusiast, that what the 2001 Rule protects is not wilderness designation but something distinct — a category of managed national forest that has been maintained in a condition broadly accessible to the public yet free of road infrastructure, and that condition would not survive rescission intact. I live within 20 miles of Mt Baker West and love the healing environment that it provides for me and multiple friends and endless community members. We cannot afford to lose these wild places that help everyone to connect to nature and improve mental, physical and spiritual health. Please consider all of the life forms of these magnificent places. The concept of "human exceptionalism" is a dead theory as we know that we CANNOT survive without a healthy natural environment that regenerates us I have experienced multiple encounters with natural beauty and wildlife peacefully coexisting on wilderness trips in Washington and Alaska that would not have been possible had they been accessible via roads. I would personally lose the calm feeling of knowing that there are protected places for all of life. Places that have clean air, water and soil that benefits us all, whether we are in direct contact with the place or not. Regarding the Mt. Baker West in the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington: The threat mechanism classified as 7.1 - Fire & fire suppression (IUCN-CMP 7.1) is actively degrading habitat for Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi, G2) in the Mt. Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area, Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, at Negligible or <1% pop. decline severity across Pervasive - large scope. The physical footprint of road construction — grading, drainage installation, stream crossings — destabilizes slopes and generates chronic sediment inputs that intensify 7.1 - Fire & fire suppression in the Mt. Baker West IRA. Failure to analyze 7.1 - Fire & fire suppression impacts to Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi, G2, PE) in the Mt. Baker West IRA renders the DEIS inadequate under NEPA. The administrative record must address this species-threat-area interaction or the analysis is arbitrary. "Road mortality is a widely recognized but rarely quantified threat to the viability of amphibian populations. The global extent of the problem is substantial and factors affecting the number of animals killed on highways include life-history traits and landscape features. Secondary effects include genetic isolation due to roads acting as barriers to migration. Long-term effects of roads on population dynamics are often severe and mitigation methods include volunteer rescues and under-road tunnels. Despite the development of methods that reduce road kill in specific locations, there is scant evidence that such measures will protect populations over the long term." — Conservation Biology (Wiley), 2013 My ask is simple: keep the 2001 Rule. Thank you for your consideration of ALL of life of which we are a small part. Please listen with heart and act with wisdom. Yours sincerely, CommentID: RLC-20260920-X4SSS0

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