Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600955

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 3 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. 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

Governance Policy Process
- “determination should be made locally, not by the federal government”
- “up to local entities to decide how that's done”
- “residents of these few areas... deserve a fair trade”
Resource Development Extraction
- “unusable for timber and mining”
- “re-evaluated for timber harvest and mining”
- “corporations using that land should directly pay”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “support some level of fuel reduction near currently existing homes”
- “wildfire-prone homeowners can do to help protect their homes”
- “Fuel reduction on existing roads is ok”

The comment

I support of the roadless rule for many reasons. First of all, I am in support of it because most of the current “roadless land” is unusable for timber and mining. Past politicians deemed this land “roadless” for good reason. Oftentimes, these areas are along mountainsides with slopes at a 30 degree incline or more. Only a few areas are appropriate for certain industries like logging and mining. Ultimately, this determination should be made locally, not by the federal government. Residents of these few areas that would be appropriate for logging and mining deserve a fair trade. The local taxpayer would be trading away public land usage and therefore, the corporations using that land should directly pay for some of the local taxpayers’ taxes if they are to use that land. Before we even consider rescinding the roadless rule: we need to be upgrading existing ones.There are thousands of miles of roads that are in need of repair or are no longer used. These roads and the 400 million acres of private land around them need to be re-evaluated for timber harvest and mining before stealing public land from public hands. I do support some level of fuel reduction near currently existing homes, but there is also an incredibly large amount that wildfire-prone homeowners can do to help protect their homes from wildfires. Fuel reduction on existing roads is ok as long as it’s up to local entities to decide how that’s done. “National Park Visior Spending contributes $56 billion to the US economy in 2024.” (NPS.gov) Economically speaking, preserving the parks and national forests around them is a sound investment. Many of these visitors spend money to visit because the parks and forests around the parks are pristine. If we move the line in the sand, both the national parks and forests lose their luster. For these reasons, it’s crucial to the economic success of the average American that the national forests remain healthy, roadless, and pristine for generations to come.