Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-491280

Opposes rescissionPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

Topics

  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “main goal is not those justifications, it is simply to increase resource extraction possibilities”
    • “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production”
    • “Unleashing American Energy”
    • “timber company making 0.5% extra revenue”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “Not every bit of the forest should be easy to access”
    • “ability of Americans to get far out into nature and reset themselves”
    • “more important than a timber company making 0.5% extra revenue”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “benefit that is, according to your own analysis, on the order of $100 million”
    • “We spend that much on a couple days of the Iran war”
    • “Hire more people for the IRS and audit rich tax dodgers and you'll make more than this per year”

What it names

Law cited
Executive Order 14154Executive Order 14192Executive Order 14225

The comment

The proposed rule has some justifications that are good (wildfire management, etc.) though I question whether additional roads will actually help very much with that without data to back it up. The main problem I have with this proposed rule is that while it does bring up some good points it is very clear that the main goal is not those justifications, it is simply to increase resource extraction possibilities: > this deregulatory action advances the policy objectives of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that “the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.” In Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, the President likewise declared that “it is in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” I also don't see how "you can't build roads here to harvest timber" is more onerous regulation than "well depending on where you are in the country you may or may not be able to build a road here to harvest timber". Also 58.5 million acres is tiny in the grand scheme of the United States. Why break down protections for a relatively small pieces of the US forest system in order to get a benefit that is, according to your own analysis, on the order of $100 million? We spend that much on a couple days of the Iran war. Sums larger than that get lost every year by the Department of Defense that can't even pass a simple audit. Hire more people for the IRS and audit rich tax dodgers and you'll make more than this per year. Not every bit of the forest should be easy to access. The ability of Americans to get far out into nature and reset themselves is more important than a timber company making 0.5% extra revenue on their balance sheet. Jason

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