Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-583906

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted 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

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

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “weaken its ability to protect watershed health”
    • “divesting in watershed health”
    • “anticipated impacts to watersheds and water quality”
    • “protect water quality”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “conflict with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act”
    • “regulatory requirements to protect water quality”
    • “NEPA analysis”
    • “obligation Congress imparted on the Agency”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “focuses on the finite Executive Orders and directives”
    • “obligation to be transparent with the taxpayers”
    • “disclose historic and projected budgets”
    • “analyzing the budgetary needs to implement the regulatory requirements”

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Own letter

The comment

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comments and extending the public comment period. While the 2001 Roadless Rule clearly stated how it aligned with the national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and the environment- the 2026 proposed rule pays no mind to the policy and instead focuses on the finite Executive Orders and directives of the current Administration. In doing so, the USDA is proposing to weaken its ability to protect watershed health, an obligation Congress imparted on the Agency when establishing the National Forests. The United States government has an obligation to be transparent with the taxpayers that it is divesting in watershed health to prioritize private development of public lands. Additionally, the 2026 proposed rule relies on BMPs to meet its regulatory requirements to protect water quality (e.g. CWA) but also acknowledges it lacks sufficient funding to implement those requirements and properly maintain roads. This contradiction, which may conflict with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, should be addressed in the final rule and NEPA analysis by analyzing the budgetary needs to implement the regulatory requirements/BMPs over time (e.g. 70 years); disclose historic and projected budgets available to implement those requirements and perform road maintenance; and disclose the anticipated impacts to watersheds and water quality due to the lack of available funding.

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