Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-473097

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 23, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS fails to adequately evaluate the impacts of rescinding the Roadless Rule on the Snoqualmie watershed's water quality, habitat fragmentation for at-risk species, and the economic value of outdoor recreation, while requesting the selection of the 'No Action' alternative.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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
    • “Impact on Local Water Quality”
    • “Road construction severely increases soil erosion and sedimentation”
    • “Snoqualmie watershed provides clean drinking water”
    • “increase water treatment costs”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Habitat Fragmentation for At-Risk Species”
    • “intact habitat corridors”
    • “survival of species such as the salmon, owls, and bears”
    • “disrupt migration patterns and reduce biodiversity”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation”
    • “permanent economic contributions of the outdoor recreation economy”
    • “hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping”
    • “supports small businesses in rural gateway communities”

What it names

National Forests
Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceLegal

Peter Siu Burien, WA 09/21/2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Forest Service 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Comments on Proposed Rule to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66) Dear Director, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to completely rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. As an active user of public lands who regularly visits Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, I am deeply concerned about the long-term ecological and economic impacts of opening these remaining wild spaces to road construction and industrial logging. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to adequately account for several critical factors: 1. Impact on Local Water Quality: Road construction severely increases soil erosion and sedimentation in municipal watersheds. In my local area, Snoqualmie watershed provides clean drinking water to thousands of residents. The agency has not fully evaluated how the degradation of roadless areas will increase water treatment costs for local communities. 

 2. Habitat Fragmentation for At-Risk Species: The proposed repeal threatens intact habitat corridors that are essential for the survival of species such as the salmon, owls, and bears. Fragmentation from new roads will disrupt migration patterns and reduce biodiversity, a consequence that the DEIS underestimates. 

 3. Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation: The DEIS relies heavily on projected timber revenues while undervaluing the permanent economic contributions of the outdoor recreation economy. Millions of Americans visit these backcountry areas for hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping, which directly supports small businesses in rural gateway communities. 

 Instead of a total repeal, I urge the Forest Service to select the "No Action" alternative and maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections. Thank you for your time and for considering these substantive comments. Sincerely, Peter Siu

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