Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-460057

Supports rescissionPosted September 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “enjoys visiting national forests”
    • “well kept trails, restrooms, and campsites”
    • “maintaining and improving the sites”
    • “protect these forests for future visitors”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “cost money”
    • “help cover that upkeep”
    • “fees would stay local”
    • “proposed fees also seem reasonable”

What it names

National Forests
Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests
Roadless areas
Green Mountain

The comment

I'm a college student who enjoys visiting national forests, and I support the proposal to establish recreation fee sites in the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests. Well kept trails, restrooms, and campsites cost money, and it's fair for the people who use these sites to help cover that upkeep, especially since the fees would stay local and go directly toward maintaining and improving the sites. The proposed fees also seem reasonable compared to similar sites nearby. My one request is that the Forest Service keep these places accessible to students and lower-income visitors, for example, by offering free days or discounted passes. With that addition, I think this proposal is a good way to protect these forests for future visitors.

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