Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-408796

Supports rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 15, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Roadless Rule has resulted in a lack of access and maintenance funding, and that rescinding it is necessary to allow for greater access and fuels reduction to mitigate wildfire size, duration, and costs.

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
    • “wildland fire fighter and forester for 20 years”
    • “Fires have become giant in area as well as costs”
    • “Greater access and fuels reduction would lessen the size, duration, and costs of fires”
    • “It takes boots on the ground to put a fire to bed”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “no money for maintenance”
    • “resources are supposed to fund the management and protection of the forests”
    • “terrible existing roads and infrastructure”
  • Public Land Access Rights
    • “every road was open and you could explore”
    • “no access”
    • “managed and enjoyed for multiple uses”

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

I am in full support of removing the roadless rule. I’ve been a wildland fire fighter and forester for 20 years. I remember the forest service of my youth where every road was open and you could explore and truly enjoy our public lands. Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot established the forest service to be managed and enjoyed for multiple uses. They said the Muir ideology was for the parks service. The national forests are not parks and their resources are supposed to fund the management and protection of the forests. They were always intended to be working forests to be managed for the greater good. What I see under the roadless rule is no access, no money for maintenance, terrible existing roads and infrastructure. Fires have become giant in area as well as costs. Aerial resources are great but they do not put out fires. It takes boots on the ground to put a fire to bed. Greater access and fuels reduction would lessen the size, duration, and costs of fires. The roadless rule must be rescinded and common sense management reinstated.

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