Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-576235

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes the commenter's personal connection to the Ten Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area in Kootenai National Forest and St. Louis, MO, while urging the retention of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and 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

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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “hiking and backpacking, camping”
    • “remote and wild spaces”
    • “outdoor wilderness experiences”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds”
    • “Roads can divert streams or water supplies”
    • “runoff or erosion potential”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “select the No Action Alternative”
    • “Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient”
    • “urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule”

What it names

National Forests
Kootenai National Forest
Roadless areas
LakesLakes Basin

The comment

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

I live in St. Louis, MO and 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, camping, and operating or working for a business connected to public lands. I grew up near the PNT with my scout troop and found those experiences to be foundational my upbringing. I want others to have that same opportunity to be in remote and wild spaces. Ten Lakes Basin is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Ten Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area in Kootenai National Forest. I remember having a great weekend of backpacking and swimming with my scout troop. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Roads can divert streams or water supplies, requiring culverts and maintenance. It also results in runoff or erosion potential. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Roadless landscapes allow people to truly have outdoor wilderness experiences that are harder to come by in roaded areas. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? 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