Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601578

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 4 submissions in its group. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored as the letter — The shared letter of a family, scored once for everyone who sent it.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “protect clean water”
- “drinking-water sources”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “quiet backcountry experiences”
- “outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy”
- “recreate in [specific place]”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “last intact forests”
- “open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging”
- “keep the Roadless Rule in place”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Roadless Rule already allows important wildfire resilience work”
- “nearly 250,000 acres have been treated in California roadless areas since 2001”

What it names

Roadless areas: Castle Peak

The comment

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live near / recreate in the West Shore of Lake Tahoe, Castle Peak. These roadless forests protect clean water, provide the quiet backcountry experiences I value, and support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless Rule already allows important wildfire resilience work — nearly 250,000 acres have been treated in California roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging at a time when agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.