Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-444966

Supports rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 17, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the commenter resides in East Linn County and asserts that rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is necessary to restore forest health and mitigate wildfire risks in that specific location.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “fear of forest fire”
- “logging crews used well-maintained logging roads to access and extinguish the fire”
- “inadequate forest fire management”
- “restoring our forest land to health and productivity”
National Security Public Safety
- “keeping our communities safe from intruding forest fires”
- “fire would get out-of-hand”
- “wildfire has been a great problem”

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: EvidenceLegal

September 17, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124. RE: Docket number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66. Dear Director, As a child growing up in East Linn County there was commonly a fear of forest fire. When a fire broke out a couple of logging crews used well-maintained logging roads to access and extinguish the fire. The logging industry was very proactive because timber was how these people made their living; they wanted to protect that. There was a fear that a fire would get out-of-hand and there would be another great burn like the Tillamook Burn. Then sometime in the late 1980's the care of our timber resources took a shift. Major cutbacks on logging federally owned forests; no longer maintaining logging roads and no longer maintaining the forest but allowing underbrush to overtake the forest floors. The results have been obvious and it’s unbelievable that we continue to allow this inadequate forest fire management to continue. Some 40 years ago when this shift in forest management was proposed, my late mother's words were prophetic. "They can't do that! The forest will burn up!" Here we are in the 2020's and every year there is “Tillamook Burn” size fire. Every year for the last 20 years wildfire has been a great problem. You hear often of fires that are allowed to burn and burn because there is no road access. The saddest part of it all is we are not big enough to admit our error. We do not come out and say, "Our current forest management is not working, and we are paying the price; therefore, we need to make a change." I know many want to say, “the cause of all these fires is due to global warming” but that is ridiculous! Rescinding the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be a start to restoring our forest land to health and productivity and keeping our communities safe from intruding forest fires!