Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-611128

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

What it names

National Forests
Lassen National Forest

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Own letter

The comment

Dear Tom Schultz, I am writing to oppose the recisision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Years ago I worked in Lassen National Forest, and I saw first hand the impact that roads (many of the "temporary") had on the Forest. I am from New Hampshire and while our forests are quite different, the climate is changing. Droughts are becoming longer and more frequent. The compounding environmental damage from roads and the extractive logging they facilitate will bring us similar problems. My memories of my time in Lassen include the fine dust on the Forest Service roads (reading more about the issue, I now realize that many of them may be considered "temporary" and were never counted in any inventory of roads) and the constant fire danger. The Forestwide bans on chainsaws (for fear of fire danger) or target shooting (sparks) were implemented earlier than normal that year. I live in Europe at the moment. Living away from home has given me a new perspective on what makes the USA special. Being able to enjoy large areas without roads is a very rare thing. Personally I lose the joy of hiking in my home state with my kid, showing them the the wonders of the forest, undisturbed by roads. Keep the forest whole.

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