Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606580

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Evidence.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “preserve what is left of the limited areas of wild land”
- “negatively impacted the natural ecosystems”
- “natural migration patterns of wildlife”
- “we need more conservation, not less”
Public Health Wellbeing
- “natural, undeveloped green spaces have been shown to be mental health RESOURCES”
- “lower stress levels”
- “protects against many psychological and physical stress-related pathologies”
- “conserved lands are a public health RESOURCE”
Resource Development Extraction
- “we do not need more roads”
- “productive and resources are not solely defined by what we can access with a motorized vehicle or extract from the land”
- “thumb on the scale in favor of conservation at the expense of productive use and development”

The comment

To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my opposition to the Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rules. I support conservation of our public lands. It is imperative that we, the people and the land managers, preserve what is left of the limited areas of wild land in the US. So much of our land is already developed with roads; we do not need more roads. The current roads cutting through our wild lands have already negatively impacted the natural ecosystems and the natural migration patterns of wildlife. In order to maintain the health of our country – America, the beautiful – we need more conservation, not less. The Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule states: "Repeal of the 2024 Rule will, therefore, improve the BLM’s management of the public lands by restoring the more efficient processes in place prior to that Rule’s promulgation and removing any thumb on the scale in favor of conservation at the expense of productive use and development of the public lands and their many important resources." The rule repeal fails to address the fact that "productive" and "resources" are not solely defined by what we can access with a motorized vehicle or extract from the land. As a mental health professional, I must inform the stakeholders involved in this decision: natural, undeveloped green spaces have been shown to be mental health RESOURCES, which lower stress levels (e.g., Donnelly & MacIntyre, 2019; Ulrich, 1984; and Wolf et al, 2017). By extension, time in these spaces protects against many psychological and physical stress-related pathologies, which include leading causes of death reported by the CDC: cardiac illness, diabetes, substance abuse, and others (CDC.gov). Therefore, our conserved lands are a public health RESOURCE, which promotes a PRODUCTIVE society. The Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rules would be devastating to the land and our public health. Please do not support this rescission. Sincerely, Josie McKee