Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601244

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Recreation and Wilderness Areas”
- “recreation settings could shift toward more developed conditions”
- “I don't want that”
- “benefit recreation”
Resource Development Extraction
- “profit from timber or mineral harvesting”
- “increase in energy/natural resource production”
- “extracting more resources from our public lands”
- “resource extraction motives”
Governance Policy Process
- “adhere to a series of Executive Orders”
- “widespread deregulation”
- “intentional obfuscation of the far less palatable goals”
- “shocking lack of respect for the American public”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “lip service paid to tribal interests”
- “interests are consistently ignored”
- “Tribal Summary Impact Statement”
- “allow more state, local, and tribal inputs”

The comment

I am an outdoor enthusiast located in a western state, so I will start with the most obvious effect rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will have on me: Recreation and Wilderness Areas. In EIS Table 3: Summary of effects, you state: "Alternative 2 has the greatest potential impact on recreation settings and scenery. Short-term timber harvest and road construction effects could include noise, visible infrastructure, and temporary closures. Long-term, recreation settings could shift toward more developed conditions with future activities more likely in the semi-primitive and roaded areas." The simple response is, I don't want that. I can't think of anyone outside of those who stand to profit from timber or mineral harvesting who does. The stated intent of "Alternative 2 – Roadless Rule Recission" is to adhere to a series of Executive Orders. None of those orders prioritize the health or maintenance of forests, wilderness areas, recreation sites, etc. They prioritize widespread deregulation and an increase in energy/natural resource production on public lands. I do not want roads and infrastructure built for the purpose of extracting more resources from our public lands. The USDA does not need to rescind this rule to properly maintain roads, trailheads, and fire breaks. In public the USDA consistently claims this decision will improve firefighting, benefit recreation, and allow more state, local, and tribal inputs. One example: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/08/18/usda-acts-remove-roadless-rule-restrictions-exacerbate-rising-wildfire-risk Those goals are clearly at odds with the goals stated in the EOs and throughout the docket. The claims are either based on the false premise that resource extraction motives will yield meaningful second order benefits, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the goals of this administration. The lip service paid to tribal interests is particularly galling, as those interests are consistently ignored throughout the EIS and Tribal Summary Impact Statement. At best, the discrepancies between public-facing statements and the plain text and intent of the rule rescission show a shocking lack of respect for the American public from USDA leadership. More likely, they are an intentional obfuscation of the far less palatable goals behind this action. Do not rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.