Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604406

Supports rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

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

Topics

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “reduce hazardous fuels”
    • “forest health or wildfire risk”
    • “active forest management”
    • “fuels reduction”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “My business and employees depend on forest management projects”
    • “steady supply of projects to retain employees”
    • “invest in equipment, train workers”
    • “enough economic value to get completed”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “decisions to be made through local forest plans”
    • “site-specific review instead of a broad national restriction”
    • “Local Forest Service professionals should be able to look at the conditions on the ground”
    • “science-based, site-specific decisions”

What it names

Works cited
Johnston et al. 2023

The comment

I support rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I am a forest operator. My business and employees depend on forest management projects that can be safely reached, bid, and completed. We are the people who build and maintain forest roads, operate logging equipment, haul forest products, reduce hazardous fuels, plant trees, and complete restoration work on the ground. The current Roadless Rule can limit whether this work is practical or even possible. A project may be needed for forest health or wildfire risk, but it still has to have workable access, safe operating conditions, reasonable hauling, and enough economic value to get completed. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would not automatically approve logging or new roads. It would allow those decisions to be made through local forest plans and site-specific review instead of a broad national restriction. That is important to contractors. Local Forest Service professionals should be able to look at the conditions on the ground and decide what tools are appropriate. In some places, that may include thinning, fuels reduction, timber harvest, road reconstruction, temporary access, or other forest management work. In other places, no treatment may be needed. Forest conditions are not the same everywhere, and management should reflect those differences. I also want the Forest Service to consider the people and businesses needed to carry out this work. Federal forest management depends on a skilled private-sector workforce. Contractors need a steady supply of projects to retain employees, invest in equipment, train workers, and maintain the capacity needed for forest management and wildfire response. Removing unnecessary barriers can help the Forest Service design projects that are safer, more practical, and more likely to be completed. Please finalize the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule and give local forest managers the ability to make science-based, site-specific decisions about access and active forest management. Thank you for considering the perspective of the forest operators and contractors who perform this work.

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