Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-582285

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 6, 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity”
- “Roadless areas ensure wildlife habits remain intact and protected”
- “wildlife watching”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “hiking and backpacking”
- “spend as much time as I can in nature, free from roads and developments”
- “revive and refresh from a demanding job”
Governance Policy Process
- “urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule”
- “select the No Action Alternative”
- “Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient”

What it names

Roadless areas: Mill Creek

The comment

I live in Mill Creek, WA 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 and wildlife watching. It is important to me to spend as much time as I can in nature, free from roads and developments, to revive and refresh from a demanding job. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Roadless areas ensure wildlife habits remain intact and protected. 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.