Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600668

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
- “Congruent, uninterrupted spaces are essential for wildlife”
- “provide habitat for more than 50% of vulnerable terrestrial species”
- “Fracturing of these spaces threatens animal and plant communities”
- “Noise affects birds and their animals, vehicles on roads directly kill and injure countless creatures”
Water Quality Quantity
- “about 24 million Americans get their clean drinking water from roadless areas”
- “runoff from vehicles pollutes soil and waterways”
- “What is the cost of immediately and safely replacing that?”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Many recreational activities are dependent on the peaceful, road-free environments”
- “I do not want to see that opened up for extraction”
- “It is so much more valuable to all of us as a living, breathing, active ecosystem”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “84% of wildfires are caused directly by human activity”
- “logging and other land-use practices create an abundance of dry fuels”
- “analysis in this proposal does not accurately account for the increased risk”

The comment

Hello! I am writing to urge the USDA to uphold strong protections for all roadless areas. Reversing the 25-year-old roadless rule opens up the most protected areas of our national forest land to logging, mining, and other drilling in what little undominated natural spaces we have left. I understand the benefits of utilizing natural resources but those short-term economic gains (to a few) are far outweighed the short- and long-term benefits (to everyone) of keeping that land protected. Wildfire is a significant issue in our country, particularly prevalent in the western states where the majority of roadless area are located. However, this is not generally where wildfires are starting. 84% of wildfires are caused directly by human activity. I am concerned that the analysis in this proposal does not accurately account for the increased risk. It also does not address the fact that logging and other land-use practices create an abundance of dry fuels that can lead to larger fires. Congruent, uninterrupted spaces are essential for wildlife. These roadless areas, while only 2% of land in the continental 48, provide habitat for more than 50% of vulnerable terrestrial species. Not only threatened and endangered animals but all sorts of wildlife make these roadless areas home. Fracturing of these spaces threatens animal and plant communities. Noise affects birds and their animals, vehicles on roads directly kill and injure countless creatures and impact migration, runoff from vehicles pollutes soil and waterways, and increased traffic brings invasive and non-native species. The benefits of these intact ecosystems are almost impossible to fully quantify. For example, about 24 million Americans get their clean drinking water from roadless areas. What is the cost of immediately and safely replacing that? Many recreational activities are dependent on the peaceful, road-free environments of these protected areas. I do not want to see that opened up for extraction of coal, oil, wood, and other natural materials. It is so much more valuable to all of us as a living, breathing, active ecosystem. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Instead, I urge the USDA and US Forest Service to maintain full protection of roadless areas (alternative 1 - no action alternative). I encourage more listening to public comment, prioritizing Tribal perspectives, and following science. Thank you, ____