Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604966

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 14 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “restore habitat for sensitive fish and wildlife species”
- “fragment fish and wildlife habitat”
- “Roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat”
Water Quality Quantity
- “degrade water quality and quantity”
- “sedimentation and erosion that reduce water quality”
- “create barriers to fish migration”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “reduce backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities”
- “hunting and angling opportunities for Americans”
- “keeping these public lands a great place to hunt and fish”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire”
- “hazardous fuels treatments in roadless areas are commonplace”
- “restoring forest health”

The comment

My number one point to make clear is that there are hundreds of acres of clear cut areas in so called "wilderness" on USFS land already accessible by roads that need maintaining (Cube Cove?? or look at POW, Kupreanof islands), all with choked out, unhealthy forests desperately in need of thinning and stream restoration to reduce forest stand density, lower wildfire risk, and return wildlife and fish populations that are not there anymore. Why wouldn't that be the top priority instead of building new roads to log old growth? I hear the same polarizing arguments over and over again.. more outside NGO's that don't live in Alaska, making money off Alaska-- and while there is a lot of truth to this what is considered for someone to be from Alaska? I grew up in Colorado in the 80's, had a strong wilderness ethic instilled in me from a young age, and fast-forward..I have worked in Alaska the last three summer seasons in remote native villages on land management projects. What I see are a lot of people who are recent transplants to Alaska (fueled by some psychedelic fantasy), whose environmental ethic is clearly flawed, that now use the rhetoric: don't tell Alaskans what to do if you are not from Alaska.. this while they make millions defending indigenous rights, the poor, and so called "healing the land" all done with a flawed environmental ethic that gets passed down to those they claim to educate. Alaska is really the last frontier: full of corrupt actors, charlatans, drug addicts and eccentrics who don't belong in the positions they occupy yet somehow maintain them given the declining population and work shortages found there. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conserves over 58 million acres of multiple-use public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service that provide some of the best places to hunt and fish in America. Repealing safeguards afforded by the Roadless Rule will jeopardize intact fish and wildlife habitat and I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to uphold strong protections for all roadless areas. Across the country, roadless areas provide irreplaceable habitat for native trout and salmon, big game, and other wildlife. The 2001 Roadless Rule generally prohibits new road construction and industrial logging, while at the same time keeping these public lands open to habitat improvement projects, hazardous fuels reduction, hunting, fishing, OHV riding, firewood cutting, grazing, and camping. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for balanced forest management, including timber harvest, to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, as well as to restore habitat for sensitive fish and wildlife species. Importantly, hazardous fuels treatments in roadless areas are commonplace, helping protect at-risk communities and restoring forest health. If rescinded, new road construction and associated industrial-scale logging will fragment fish and wildlife habitat, degrade water quality and quantity, and reduce backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands. There are 370,000 miles of roads in the National Forest System with a maintenance backlog of $10.8 billion, 55% of which is due to dilapidated roads that cause sedimentation and erosion that reduce water quality, create barriers to fish migration, and create public safety hazards. We need to take care of the roads we already have, not add more roads that we don’t have the funding or personnel to maintain. Roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat and hunting and angling opportunities for Americans of all walks of life. I strongly support maintaining protections for all roadless areas and keeping these public lands a great place to hunt and fish.