Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-583484

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “headwaters for rivers that supply drinking water”
    • “Roads and logging in these watersheds bring sediment and pollution”
    • “protect the Roadless Rule for the clean water”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “provide habitat for more than 500 imperiled species”
    • “protect the Roadless Rule for... wildlife”
    • “Once a road is built and a forest is logged, we cannot get that back”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Studies have found wildfires are far more likely to start in areas with roads”
    • “Opening these forests to development would not make communities safer”
    • “Direct funding toward maintaining existing roads and trails before building new ones”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “A 21-day comment period is far too short”
    • “Extend the public comment period so more people can weigh in”
    • “Make any site-specific changes through forest planning, with real public input”

What it names

National Forests
Routt National Forest

The comment

My name is Kylie Kitchin, and I live in Westminster, Colorado. I spend my free time outdoors on the Front Range and in the Colorado mountains, hiking, camping, disc golfing, and more. I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I recognize that Colorado manages its roadless areas under its own state-specific rule. I am writing anyway because national forests belong to every American, and what happens to them in other states matters to me. The rule protects nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road construction and commercial logging. These forests provide habitat for more than 500 imperiled species, and they are the headwaters for rivers that supply drinking water to over 60 million people in 33 states. Roads and logging in these watersheds bring sediment and pollution into the water communities depend on. The proposal is often framed as a wildfire solution, but the research points the other way. Studies have found wildfires are far more likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless tracts, largely because roads bring more people and more ignition sources. Opening these forests to development would not make communities safer. I also want to flag the process. A 21-day comment period is far too short for a decision this consequential, affecting land that belongs to all of us. I urge the agency to extend it. I respectfully ask the agency to: •Keep the Roadless Rule in place as written. •Extend the public comment period so more people can weigh in. •Direct funding toward maintaining existing roads and trails before building new ones. •Make any site-specific changes through forest planning, with real public input. I recently camped in Routt National Forest, and it was absolutely majestic. I will definitely be back. Colorado chose to put lasting protections in place for its backcountry, and places like Routt are better for it. Other states' forests deserve the same certainty. Once a road is built and a forest is logged, we cannot get that back, and I want these places to stay intact for the next generation of campers and hikers. I urge you to protect the Roadless Rule for the clean water, wildlife, and public lands that millions of us rely on. Respectfully, Kylie Kitchin

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