Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-291138

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 31, 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

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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Rescinding the Roadless Rule will make wildfires even more dangerous”
    • “Building new roads is likely to increase fire ignitions”
    • “wildfires are almost twice as likely to occur in roaded areas”
    • “Constructing roads into roadless areas would simply increase the number of fires”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “Climate adaptation needs intact landscapes”
    • “Forest canopies cool the ground beneath them”
    • “daily maximum temperatures average roughly 4°C cooler”
    • “peak cooling exceeding 5°C during heatwaves”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “animals who lose their homes”
    • “The 2001 Rule keeps them intact”
    • “intact landscapes”
    • “relationship”

What it names

Works cited
10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.09.00410.1111/ele.7009610.1186/s42408-026-00450-2

Attachments

6 files. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material
  • Supporting material

The comment

Dear Ms. Rollins, Climate adaptation needs intact landscapes. I follow the science. The 2001 Rule keeps them intact. Keep the Rule. I have seen the devastation that wildfires have on the community who is impacted, by the animals who lose their homes and the men and women who fight them at risk to their lives. Wildland firefighters risk their lives every day to save others, and the least we can do is make it easier for them to protect us (and our planet). What I've described isn't recreation. It's a relationship. Rescinding this rule ends it. During my time living in Upper Michigan, we were often impacted by the smoke from wildfires in Canada. It is scary to be kept indoors, watching the world around you covered in a thick smog, wondering if things would ever be safe again. I now live in fear that these same wildfires will take my families homes and lives in Montana, and I can do nothing to stop it. Forest canopies cool the ground beneath them. Under intact forest canopies, daily maximum temperatures average roughly 4°C cooler than in open areas, with peak cooling exceeding 5°C during heatwaves. During an extreme 11-day heatwave in 2003, forest understory was on average 5.2°C cooler than open areas, with peak differences reaching 11°C (Schnabel et al. 2025; Wang et al. 2025). — Florian Schnabel, Rémy Beugnon, Bo Yang, Ronny Richter, Nico Eisenhauer, Yuanyuan Huang, Xiaojuan Liu, Christian Wirth, Simone Cesarz, Andreas Fichtner, Maria D Perles‐Garcia, Georg J A Hähn, Werner Härdtle, Matthias Kunz, Nadia C Castro Izaguirre, Pascal A Niklaus, Goddert von Oheimb, Bernhard Schmid, Stefan Trogisch, Manfred Wendisch, Keping Ma, Helge Bruelheide, 2025 · Ecology Letters (https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70096) “Rescinding this rule will remove prohibitions on road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest on nearly 59 million acres of the National Forest System, allowing for fire prevention and responsible timber production. — U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025 (https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/23/secretary-rollins-rescinds-roadless-rule-eliminating-impediment-responsible-forest-management)” “We found that human-caused ignitions were concentrated close to roads, in high road density areas, and near the wildland–urban interface. In contrast, lightning-caused ignitions were concentrated in low road density areas, away from WUI, and in low population density areas. Although previous studies have documented associations of human-caused fire ignitions with road corridors, less consideration has been given to understanding the multiple influences of roads on the fire regime at a broader landscape-scale. — Ganapathy Narayanaraj | Michael C. Wimberly, 2012 · Applied Geography (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.09.004)” “The 2001 Roadless Rule Final EIS predicted that extensive fire reduction work would not be needed within inventoried roadless areas for at least 20 years. In the 24 years since that analysis, the area encompassing the WUI has increased alongside increased insect and disease and wildfire activity throughout the National Forest System, including within inventoried roadless areas. — Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2025 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16581/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation-national-forest-system-lands)” “wildfires are almost twice as likely to occur in roaded areas as in roadless areas, because roadless areas are generally located further away from communities and are harder to access — U.S. Senate, 2025 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2042/text)” “Constructing roads into roadless areas would simply increase the number of fires that need to be suppressed without having a meaningful impact on the likelihood of a large fire igniting. — Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P., Dietz, M.S., 2026 · Fire Ecology (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2)” “Building new roads is likely to increase fire ignitions. — Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P., Dietz, M.S., 2026 · Fire Ecology (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2)” “The highest wildfire-ignition density was in lands within 50 m of roads (7.99 fires/1000 ha), and the second highest wildfire-ignition density was in other national forest lands outside of the 50-m road buffers but not in wilderness or roadless areas (3.50 fires/1000 ha). — Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P., Dietz, M.S., 2026 · Fire Ecology (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2)” Rescinding the Roadless Rule will make wildfires even more dangerous and more prominent. My opposition is on the record. In solidarity, CommentID: RLC-20260830-8W6EF2

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless