Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-599817

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “valuable resources for recreation”
    • “frequent national forest areas in my free time for recreation”
    • “devastated to lose any of these areas”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “ecosystem preservation”
    • “pristine and valuable resources”
    • “lose their integrity through road construction”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “affect wildlife populations”
    • “habitat will be further fragmented and lost”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “increase wildfire risk”
    • “wildfires are much more likely to begin near roads”
    • “spends $3 billion each year fighting fires”

The comment

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the roadless rules. Resending this rule will have monumental impacts on our country’s national forests, which are some of the most pristine and valuable resources for recreation and ecosystem preservation. Once they lose their integrity through road construction, it will be difficult to get them back. Removing the rule will increase wildfire risk, as wildfires are much more likely to begin near roads. Our country already spends $3 billion each year fighting fires on federal lands and rescinding this rule will only increase that number. Resending the rule will also affect wildlife populations, whose habitat will be further fragmented and lost by roads and other activities. I often frequent national forest areas in my free time for recreation and would be devastated to lose any of these areas that help make our country so great.

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