Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-328191

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from DEIS Table 21 and the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis to demonstrate that the proposed rescission contradicts the agency's own findings on wildfire risk and net economic benefit, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent to challenge the legal basis for the rescission.

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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.
  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “hiked and camped there”
    • “ride trails in the Cache National Forest”
    • “photograph wildlife, landscapes, and the night sky”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “wildfire and fuels management concerns”
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “ignition data in DEIS Table 21 shows far higher fire density on roaded land”
    • “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “rejected in litigation on grounds that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”
    • “The Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
    • “2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
    • “legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “Utah alone holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres”

What it names

National Forests
Caribou National ForestWasatch-Cache National Forest
Law cited
28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Most of my life has been spent living near the Wellsville Mountains. I have hiked and camped there, and my daughters camped with the Girl Scouts in the Wellsvilles. I ride trails in the Cache National Forest, paddle the lakes where I camp, and photograph wildlife, landscapes, and the night sky across the Cache National Forest and throughout the southwest desert. The Wellsville area covers 1,717 acres in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Mt. Logan West, at 5,285 acres, sits right next to where I live. Mt. Logan South, 17,014 acres, is where I hike and camp. Willard, at 18,059 acres, gives a great view of the Salt Lake Valley. Mt. Logan North covers 18,930 acres, and Clarkston Mountain, 7,099 acres in the Caribou National Forest, is another wild place near where I live, and I want to keep it that way. I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. The agency has argued that rescission is partly justified by wildfire and fuels management concerns, but the agency's own record contradicts that rationale directly. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." I hike, camp, and ride trails in the Cache National Forest, and the areas I named sit within it. The ignition data in DEIS Table 21 shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must explain, plainly and in the administrative record, why this proposal departs from those findings. The economic case for rescission fares no better than the wildfire rationale. The agency's own record acknowledges that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Utah alone holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. How does the agency justify expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog when its own analysis cannot establish a net benefit? The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for a single national rule. When the agency previously took that position and replaced the 2001 rule with a state-by-state framework, that effort was rejected in litigation on grounds that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency has not explained how this rescission avoids those same deficiencies. I want to keep the wild places near where I live wild, and I ask the agency to address in the record how a return to piecemeal management protects nationally significant roadless values that no single state-level process can fully secure. Finally, the agency has suggested that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The courts that examined that precise question disagreed. The Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." That court further held that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state clearly in the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding before proceeding further with this rescission. Sincerely, Karl Pettigrew Logan, Utah

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