Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-233117

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “avid backcountry recreationist and outdoor enthusiast”
    • “hundreds of miles of mountain bike, hiking, climbing access and ski terrain”
    • “devastating to the outdoor community”
    • “recreational backcountry ski areas”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “critical habitat protection for elk, moose and black bears”
    • “irrevocable damage to critical wildlife habitat”
    • “rich ecosystems that will be impacted”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “most pristine and beautiful wedge of the state”
    • “destruction of millions of acres of reactional land”
    • “take NO ACTION, leaving the current legislation as is”

What it names

National Forests
Medicine Bow-Routt National ForestSan Juan National ForestWhite River National Forest

The comment

It is with great concern that I am commenting on the recinding of the current legislation on Roadless Area Conservation. As an avid backcountry recreationist and outdoor enthusiast, I would be remiss to not make my voice heard. In the Colorado front range and Northern mountains alone, from the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, to the Pike-San Isabel National Forest and White River National Forest, the hundreds of miles of mountain bike, hiking, climbing access and ski terrain that would be impacted by rescinding of this legislature would be devastating to the outdoor community. There are countless recreational backcountry ski areas, for example, like the East Portal/Moffat Tunnel backcountry zone in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest that afford thousands of backcountry skiers and snowshoers access through the winter to recreate. The San Juan National Forest, arguably the most pristine and beautiful wedge of the state, offers critical habitat protection for elk, moose and black bears, and is home to some of the most striking hiking trails in the State. I recognize that this proposed rule change by the Forest Service does not immediately include Colorado, which has taken ownership into its own State hands, but it sets a precedent for which I fear Colorado law makers may also follow, to allow for more mining access. I strongly believe that a full recission will cause irrevocable damage to critical wildlife habitat, and result in the destruction of millions of acres of reactional land used for the benefit of the community. Please consider the community and rich ecosystems that will be impacted by that proposed rule change, and take NO ACTION, leaving the current legislation as is, and has worked since 2001.

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