Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-612558

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

What it names

National Forests
Ashley National ForestDixie National ForestFishlake National ForestSix Rivers National Forest

The comment

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Southwestern Colorado, and have spent years exploring much of the west. I work, recreate and live within areas that are currently protected by this measure, and cannot imagine the impact this would have on places I hold close. I worked for years in the Frank Chruch River of No Return Wilderness area, a place that truly cannot be described in words. The most amazing part of that place is that is it has no roads. I have also worked in the Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California, who’s endangered chinook salmon population would be at risk. Outside of work, I have spent countless hours in the Fishlake National Forest, Ashley National Forest, and Dixie National Forest in Utah. All of these places deserve to be protected in their current state. Rescinding the “2001 Roadless Rule” puts countless resources, ecosystems and recreation areas at risk. These places I’ve listed (along with all others affected by this potential measure) protect drinking water resources, preserve old growth habitats, store carbon and support wildlife that we all enjoy. These areas are crucial to local people, for water, food and shelter. Please do nott rescind this preservation measure.

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