Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602189

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Tongass National Forest in Alaska serves as a specific counter-example to the argument that Roadless Rule exemptions mitigate wildfire risk, citing the commenter's personal experience as a seasonal surveyor in that rainforest to demonstrate the inapplicability of fire concerns to such environments.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “preserve & protect what's left of our wilderness”
- “old growth forests, clean water, and endangered species and other wildlife”
- “There isn't any more wilderness being created”
- “animals need wild forests”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Wildfire mitigation is not a valid reason to rescind the Roadless Rule”
- “Scientific consensus does not support large-scale road construction and commercial logging as effective wildfire mitigation tools”
- “Roadless forests are actually more resilient to fire”
- “wildfires are 4 times more likely to start in areas with roads”
Resource Development Extraction
- “oppose opening our precious public lands to the extraction industries”
- “commercial logging”
- “extraction industry supporters”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “acknowledging that climate change is not a 'hoax'”
- “investing in technologies to help reverse it”
- “a livable climate requires wild forests”

What it names

National Forests: Tongass National Forest

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledge

I strongly oppose rolling back the Roadless Rule and any attempt to restrict public access to our backcountry. I strongly oppose opening our precious public lands to the extraction industries. The forest service does not have the money to maintain their existing roads, yet you push for more. Why? Wildfire mitigation is not a valid reason to rescind the Roadless Rule. Scientific consensus does not support large-scale road construction and commercial logging as effective wildfire mitigation tools. Roadless forests are actually more resilient to fire. Repealing the Roadless Rule would INCREASE wildfire risk throughout the forests because wildfires are 4 times more likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless forest tracts. More than 90 percent of all wildfires nationwide have occurred within half a mile of a road. Effort and money would be much better spent acknowledging that climate change is not a “hoax”, and investing in technologies to help reverse it, such as renewable energy, which this current administration seems hell bent on restricting, even if it takes large payouts of taxpayer money to cancel existing contracts. If rescinding the Roadless Rule would actually mitigate wildfires, that would be one thing. But since the Trump administration went to great lengths in his first term to exempt the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from Roadless Rule designation, I call BS on that excuse. I worked as a seasonal surveyor in the Tongass National Forest some years back, and it is a rainforest. You’d be hard-pressed to start any fire there. But there were lots and lots of trees. There isn't any more wilderness being created. If we let it go, it's gone forever. The Roadless Rule essentially banked wilderness areas to help preserve & protect what's left of our wilderness - old growth forests, clean water, and endangered species and other wildlife. We need wild forests, animals need wild forests, a livable climate requires wild forests. Please stop your attempts to destroy them. They belong to Americans, not politicians and their extraction industry supporters. STOP!