Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-597220

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “regular trail runner, backcountry skier”
    • “quiet backcountry areas”
    • “untouched character of these places”
    • “showing my friends and family from out of state what makes Utah unique”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “fragment quiet backcountry areas and wildlife habitat”
    • “protecting roadless areas”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “increase erosion and sediment in important watersheds”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “remove an important nationwide baseline”
    • “shift decisions to individual forest plans and project reviews”

What it names

Roadless areas
White Pine

The comment

I’ve lived in Utah for 15 years and hope to retire here. As a regular trail runner, backcountry skier, and year-round user of local treasures including White Pine, Cardiff Fork, Days Fork, Silver Fork, Mineral Fork, Mt. Aire, Lambs Canyon, and upper Big Cottonwood Canyon, I strongly support keeping the Roadless Rule in place. New roads would fragment quiet backcountry areas and wildlife habitat, increase erosion and sediment in important watersheds, and completely change the untouched character of these places. Rescinding the rule would also remove an important nationwide baseline for protecting roadless areas and shift decisions to individual forest plans and project reviews. These near-pristine, world-class landscapes are a huge part of why I value living here and showing my friends and family from out of state what makes Utah unique, and I hope they remain protected.

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