Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-416860

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 16, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

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
- “support the No Action alternative”
- “extremely important to the outdoor recreation community”
- “reduce areas of public, nonmotorized recreation”
- “Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “remove important protections for approximately 45 million acres”
- “irrevocably harmed by the rescission”
- “quality of wildlife habitat”
- “natural beauty, serenity, safety”
National Security Public Safety
- “increase the likelihood of accidents, injuries and fatalities”
- “close calls with reckless drivers”
- “potentially dangerous”

What it names

National Forests: Dixie National Forest

The comment

I am an avid outdoor recreationist who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned with the idea of rescinding the Roadless Rule, which is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and the outdoor recreation economy. The rescission would remove important protections for approximately 45 million acres of backcountry national forests, including more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking. Furthermore, rescinding the Roadless Rule would significantly reduce areas of public, nonmotorized recreation, and increase the likelihood of accidents, injuries and fatalities between motorized and nonmotorized users of US national forests. As a mostly non-motorized trail user, I have encountered many close calls with reckless drivers in USFS areas that both do and do not benefit from the protection of the Roadless Rule. I have benefited greatly from the Roadless Rule protections, specifically in the Manti-La Sal National Forest, in the Gold Basin and around Mt. Tukuhnikivatz outside of Moab, UT; in the Dixie National Forest near Escalante, UT; and during backpacking trips throughout the Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests in northeast Utah. These areas would be irrevocably harmed by the rescission of the Roadless Rule -- in their natural beauty, serenity, safety, and quality of wildlife habitat. Hunters, fishers, skiers, hikers, backpackers, bicyclists, and other non-motorized users would be directly and negatively affected, permanently. USFS land outside of the roadless inventory already vastly exceeds the land under the protection of the Roadless Rule. Outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen already have fewer areas to enjoy nature than people that prefer motorized recreation. I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule as is. Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy, and rescinding the Roadless Rule is unpopular, unnecessary, and potentially dangerous.