Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604949

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “protect the Roadless Rule”
    • “important environmental protection”
    • “Our wild places need to be protected”
    • “protecting wildlife habitat”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “I depend on tourism for a living”
    • “tourists do not come to this, or any area, to see roads”
    • “tourist dollars we stand to lose”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “drinking water filtration”
    • “services provided to us free of charge by intact forests”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “carbon storage”
    • “services provided to us free of charge by intact forests”

What it names

National Forests
Manti-Lasal National Forest

The comment

Please protect the Roadless Rule - do not rescind this important environmental protection. I live in Moab UT, where 171K acres are threatened by the potential removal of the Roadless Rule in the nearby Manti-Lasal National Forest. I depend on tourism for a living and tourists do not come to this, or any area, to see roads. Our wild places need to be protected. If protecting wildlife habitat, mitigating wildfire risk, drinking water filtration & carbon storage (services provided to us free of charge by intact forests) are not sufficently motivating, think of the tourist dollars we stand to lose if we open every area for paving.

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