Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602677

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “supply clean drinking water to downstream communities”
    • “send sediment into the streams these areas protect”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “provide habitat for fish and wildlife”
    • “last large, unfragmented forests in the country”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “offer hunting, fishing, and backcountry recreation”
    • “irreplaceable public lands”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “The wildfire argument does not justify repeal”
    • “existing rule already allows timber cutting to reduce fire risk”
    • “New roads also bring more people, and more human-caused ignitions”

What it names

Law cited
36 CFR part 294

The comment

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge USDA to withdraw the proposal and leave 36 CFR part 294, subpart B, in place. The rule protects irreplaceable public lands. It covers about 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas. These are among the last large, unfragmented forests in the country. They supply clean drinking water to downstream communities, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and offer hunting, fishing, and backcountry recreation. Once roads and logging come in, those qualities cannot be restored. The wildfire argument does not justify repeal. The existing rule already allows timber cutting to reduce fire risk, as well as actions to protect public health and safety. Repeal is not needed for fuels work. New roads also bring more people, and more human-caused ignitions. The Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. The agency faces a large maintenance backlog on its existing road system. Adding roads in remote areas would deepen that liability and send sediment into the streams these areas protect. Repeal would discard a national consensus. The 2001 rule was adopted after hundreds of public meetings and more than a million comments. Replacing one national standard with forest-by-forest decisions invites inconsistency and constant pressure to open these areas one at a time. Our national forests belong to all Americans, including future generations. Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. Respectfully, Lorenz Henric Jentz Seattle, Washington

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless