Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-293436

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 8/24Owed an answerPosted August 31, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed 'open unless closed' presumption and the exemption of class 1 e-bikes from motor vehicle designation requirements (36 CFR 212.51(a)) create a gap in the EIS by failing to analyze the agency's administrative capacity to manage expanded access and the foreseeable negative impacts on wildlife and backcountry solitude.

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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “harm to wildlife, wildlands”
- “disrupts hunts”
- “displaces game, fragments habitat”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “quality of public access”
- “reduced the solitude and quality”
- “degrades the backcountry experience”
Governance Policy Process
- “open unless closed presumption”
- “maintenance and administrative capacity”
- “shifts the burden precisely backward”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR 212.51

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapLegal

Let me look up the specific rule so your comment references it accurately. Let me pull the actual rule text so your comment engages with its specifics. Here's your comment, formatted to engage directly with the rule's specifics. A few things worth knowing first: the comment period closes September 23, 2026, submitted via regulations.gov under docket FS-2026-0100. This is a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, so the agency is specifically asking for input on alternatives, effects, and relevant information. Comments that name concrete impacts and point to specific provisions carry more weight than general opposition, so I've anchored yours to the actual mechanics you're worried about: the open-unless-closed presumption, the class 1 e-bike exemption, and the "maintenance and administrative capacity" language that ties directly to your resourcing concern. --- **Re: Docket FS-2026-0100 — Travel Management; National Forest System Lands (91 FR 54686)** I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed revision of the Travel Management Rule. I am a hunter and hiker who spends significant time in National Forest backcountry, and I believe this rule will cause serious and lasting harm to wildlife, wildlands, and the quality of public access it claims to improve. My central concern is that the proposed "open unless closed" presumption arrives at exactly the moment when new vehicle technology has made deep backcountry access dramatically easier. Advanced electric bikes and capable four-wheel vehicles now let people reach remote country that was effectively self-limiting a decade ago. This is not a marginal increase in access. It is an unprecedented one, and a presumption favoring access will accelerate it rather than manage it. The proposed exemption of class 1 electric bicycles from motor vehicle use designation requirements (36 CFR 212.51(a)) illustrates the problem. Treating these as ordinary bicycles ignores how far and how fast they let riders penetrate into areas that were previously reached only on foot or horseback. The EIS should take seriously the alternative, which the notice already identifies, of retaining class 1 e-bikes as motor vehicles subject to designation. I want to speak directly to the "maintenance and administrative capacity" standard the rule lists as one basis for closure. In practice, the Forest Service does not have the staff or funding to actively manage expanded access, and it may well face further reductions. A framework that presumes routes are open unless the agency can produce specific, documented justification to close them shifts the burden precisely backward. When an agency lacks capacity, the realistic result of an open-unless-closed presumption is not careful local decision-making. It is unmanaged access by default. The EIS should analyze whether the agency can realistically administer this framework at current and projected funding levels, and what happens to resource protection when it cannot. My own experience already reflects where this is heading. Each year I encounter more people pushing further into remote areas on e-bikes and advanced vehicles. This has disrupted hunts and sharply reduced the solitude and quality that draw people to these lands in the first place. Increased motorized penetration displaces game, fragments habitat, and degrades the backcountry experience for everyone seeking a quiet, primitive setting. These are foreseeable effects the EIS must evaluate honestly, not defer to speculative future site-specific decisions. I urge USDA to retain the current Travel Management Rule (the no-action alternative) or, at minimum, to preserve the minimization criteria and the requirement that motorized routes be affirmatively designated rather than presumed open. I am adamantly opposed to this change. Thank you for considering my comment.