Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600017

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 7, 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
- “Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests”
- “Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented”
- “animal/nature enthusiast”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water”
- “intact forests filter water naturally”
- “Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change”
- “We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections”
- “climate action-driven citizen”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads”
- “roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road”
- “these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests”

The comment

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a hiker, PNW resident and climate action-driven citizen and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a hiker and animal/nature enthusiast, myself and so many citizens benefit hugely from Inventoried Roadless Area conservation, like the areas near Bellingham and in the Methow Valley. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.