Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603888

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “serious erosion damage to forests”
    • “drain the protected forests of their valuable resources”
    • “beautiful forest be cut up by roads”
  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “open up inroads for logging, mining, and oil and gas companies”
    • “drain the protected forests of their valuable resources”
    • “logged”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “spend almost every weekend running in White River NF”
    • “devastated to see this beautiful forest be cut up”
    • “running in White River NF”

What it names

National Forests
White River National Forest

The comment

Repealing the roadless rule would cause serious erosion damage to forests that are protected under it, and would open up inroads for logging, mining, and oil and gas companies to drain the protected forests of their valuable resources. The White House claims that rolling back the roadless rule is for the creation of roads to allow emergency and fire vehicles into the wilderness, but 95% of forest fires start within half a mile of a road. I spend almost every weekend running in White River NF and would be devastated to see this beautiful forest be cut up by roads and then logged. Please do not repeal this rule!!

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