Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-583140

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

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
- “preserve intact wildlife habitat”
- “Roads will destroy and fragment habitat”
- “Wildlife needs places to exist free of human encroachment”
- “GREED at the expense of wild places & wildlife”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean watersheds”
- “We need healthy, clean watersheds for fish and other river life to thrive”
- “Poorly located or maintained roads will contribute sediment to streams”
- “negatively affect aquatic habitat”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “primitive backcountry recreation”
- “hiking and backpacking, hunting or fishing, camping, wildlife watching”
- “Roadless landscapes provide opportunities for primitive and backcountry recreation”
- “This means solitude, PEACE, and backcountry experiences”
Resource Development Extraction
- “increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas”
- “directed the agency to increase timber production”
- “NOT TO GREEDY TIMBER LOGGING, MINING, AND O&G DEVELOPERS”
- “timber harvest to Forest Service planning”

What it names

National Forests: Flathead National Forest
Roadless areas: Thompson Seton #483

The comment

I live in Loveland, CO 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, hunting or fishing, camping, wildlife watching, and living in or near a National Forest community. Roadless, undeveloped National Forest lands provide a vital, national safeguard to allow wildlife to thrive, for the wildest remaining lands in our National Forests to preserve intact wildlife habitat, clean watersheds, primitive backcountry recreation, and the wild character that makes these areas pristine and sacred. Whitefish Divide is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Thompson Seton #483 Inventoried Roadless Area in Flathead National Forest. Flathead National Forest is highly valued for its pristine abundant lakes, rugged wilderness, wild rivers, 2,000+ miles of trail, beautiful campgrounds, and year-round beauty. This forest is a premiere natural landscape of the American West and must be left this way, preserved for future generations and wildlife! I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. The Forest Service already manages more than 375,000 miles of roads and reports nearly $6 billion in deferred maintenance on roads, plus nearly $1 billion for road bridges. We already struggle under Trump to maintain the roads we have, DUE TO HIS NAT'L FOREST FUNDING CUTS! I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large roadless landscapes will provide intact habitat and connections between protected areas for wildlife to exist. Roads will destroy and fragment habitat while increasing human access. Wildlife needs places to exist free of human encroachment! I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. We need healthy, clean watersheds for fish and other river life to thrive. Roads require drainage systems, culverts, stream crossings, and ongoing maintenance. Poorly located or maintained roads will contribute sediment to streams and negatively affect aquatic habitat. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Roadless landscapes provide opportunities for primitive and backcountry recreation that are increasingly difficult to find in more developed landscapes. This means solitude, PEACE, and backcountry experiences that roaded areas do NOT provide. I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. The Roadless Rule contains exceptions that allow road construction in certain circumstances, when needed to protect public health and safety. Roads can facilitate firefighting/management access, but increased human access WILL create more frequent opportunities for wildfire ignition. Human caused wildfires! I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. Rescission would return greater authority over road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest to Forest Service planning and project-level decisions at a time when the administration has directed the agency to increase timber production. GREED at the expense of wild places & wildlife! I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. FOR 25 YEARS, the Roadless Rule has established a national baseline while still containing exceptions for particular circumstances. Rescission would shift more decisions to forest plans and individual projects. HANDS OFF OUR PUBLIC LANDS! OVER 95% OF AMERICANS HAVE SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS TO OPPOSE AND CONDEMN RESCINDING THE ROADLESS RULE -- LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THESE ARE OUR PUBLIC LANDS. THEY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE, NOT TO GREEDY TIMBER LOGGING, MINING, AND O&G DEVELOPERS! NOT TO THIS ADMINISTRATION UNDER TRUMP! 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.