Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-584387

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically requesting the selection of the No Action Alternative, a revision of the DEIS to assess combined national and regional effects on forest fragmentation and watersheds, and the completion of meaningful Tribal consultation for the Tongass National Forest.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “forest fragmentation, wildlife corridors, native plants”
- “protecting places that people return to across generations”
- “natural character of these places”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clear water”
- “watersheds, and drinking-water sources”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “complete meaningful Tribal consultation”
- “consideration of subsistence, cultural resources”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “opportunities to explore nature”
- “Spending time outdoors helps me recharge”
- “experiences they offer families”

What it names

National Forests: Tongass National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 — Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Comments on the DEIS Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge USDA to select the No Action Alternative. I have spent time in Lake Tahoe throughout my life. Its forests, clear water, and mountain landscapes are part of my childhood memories and remain an important part of my life today. My connection to Tahoe has shaped my appreciation for public lands and the value of protecting places that people return to across generations. As an early childhood educator, I also care deeply about children having opportunities to explore nature, follow their curiosity, and build a connection to the world around them. The value of intact forests includes these experiences, which are difficult to capture in an economic analysis. I ask USDA to consider how additional roads and timber harvesting could affect the natural character of these places and the experiences they offer families. I understand the importance of reducing wildfire risk. The existing Rule already allows prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. Before removing protections nationwide, USDA should identify which necessary management activities are actually prevented by the Rule and explain why targeted changes would not adequately address those barriers. I am concerned that deferring environmental review to individual projects would leave the broader consequences of rescission insufficiently examined. Please revise the DEIS to assess the combined national and regional effects on forest fragmentation, wildlife corridors, native plants, watersheds, and drinking-water sources. For the Tongass National Forest, USDA should also demonstrate that its environmental analysis adequately addresses this proposal and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before making a final decision, including consideration of subsistence, cultural resources, and fish and wildlife. Spending time outdoors helps me recharge and connect with people I love. I want future generations to have those same opportunities. Please retain the Roadless Rule, address specific forest-management needs through targeted measures, and fully evaluate the broader consequences of removing these protections. Sincerely, Megan Reed Lockareff