Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602210

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 924 submissions in its group. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Carries the letter's score — A copy of a family's letter; it holds the score and answerability level of the letter it sent.

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. This rating is the one its shared letter earned.

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
- “devastate our public lands”
- “preserve sacred sites and traditional foods”
- “provide refuge for vulnerable species”
- “fragment wildlife habitat”
Water Quality Quantity
- “undermine the clean water”
- “National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people”
- “filter and store clean water”
- “clean water sources”
Governance Policy Process
- “abridged and inadequate public comment process”
- “rushed process that limits and ignores input”
- “undemocratic and deeply irresponsible”
- “over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage”
- “serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change”
- “climate resilience”
- “erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate”

The comment

I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. At the same time, logging roadless forests degrades essential services that our economy already relies on. National Forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, preserve sacred sites and traditional foods, and provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Sacrificing these values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy. It is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. Roads also spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. The Roadless Rule already includes exceptions for emergencies such as wildfire, and rescinding the Roadless Rule for the stated purpose is unnecessary and dangerous. Equally troubling is the USDA’s decision to pursue this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule was created after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. During last fall’s comment period on the Notice of Intent, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments opposing the proposed rescission of the rule. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections through a rushed process that limits and ignores input from citizens, scientists, Tribes, and local communities. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. I hope the agency will take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Mr. Matthew O Meara CA