Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579799

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “damage plants, animals and the natural environment”
- “restore biodiversity in areas that have damaged”
- “protect the ecological health of our national forests”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “visit roadless areas... frequently for recreation and nature study”
- “Six Rivers National forest and the Shasta Trinity National forest”
Governance Policy Process
- “support Alternative 1: the “No Action” alternative”
- “keep the roadless rule intact”
- “moving forward with No Action Alternative 1”

What it names

National Forests: Six Rivers National Forest

The comment

I am writing to support Alternative 1: the “No Action” alternative because we should keep the roadless rule intact. I live in Northern California and visit roadless areas in the Six Rivers National forest and the Shasta Trinity National forest frequently for recreation and nature study. New roads and logging will inevitably damage plants, animals and the natural environment. As part of various environmental restoration teams in California and New York, I have seen how long and expensive it is to restore biodiversity in areas that have damaged by erosion and pollution caused by road building and logging. I urge you to protect the ecological health of our national forests by moving forward with No Action Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Rule intact. Thank you, Felicity Wasser CPA