Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-417716

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific data regarding municipal water intakes and road-generated sediment, cites Tenth Circuit precedent affirming the 2001 Rule's validity, and requests the agency to quantify the increased risk of human-caused wildfires and explain how road construction in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest aligns with its own findings on water quality and fire safety.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “depends on winter snowpack for its water supply”
- “Without tree cover, any water we get will be unclean”
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land”
- “Adding ignition risk through new roads is the wrong direction”
- “The land will become a tinderbox prone to slides and flooding”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit stated: 'Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE'”
- “The agency should address that holding squarely”
- “The rule as written already includes exceptions”
- “A vague assertion of burden is not a sufficient basis for rescinding a rule”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Tony Grove and the surrounding old growth forest... is a place where people in this community celebrate special occasions”
- “Newly married couples have their pictures taken there”
- “Families spread the ashes of loved ones there”
- “To lose these forests... would be a wound to our hearts”

What it names

National Forests: Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 This summer I came close to evacuating, a fire ignited 1.6 miles from my house. People 1.5 miles away were told to leave immediately. I sat with the question every person in that position sits with: what goes in the car, and where do I go? I depended on local firefighters, and they won the battle. But if the day had been windy, the fire would have spread into Logan Canyon and into my neighborhood. I have lived through 8 seasons of fire. I have breathed the smoke with concern for my health and watched the devastation accumulate. I know what is at stake here. That is why I am opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in a drought-plagued town that depends on winter snowpack for its water supply. Mature trees around me need to be watered hundreds of gallons per tree and will die within two years if the drought continues. Without tree cover, any water we get will be unclean. The land will become a tinderbox prone to slides and flooding. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The Mt. Logan North, Mt. Logan South, Mt. Logan West, and Wellsville roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are part of what holds this watershed together. I ask the agency to explain, specifically and on the record, how opening those areas to road construction is consistent with its own findings on road-generated sediment and the drinking water those watersheds supply. The agency argues that rescission would help manage wildfire. But the agency's own record 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." That finding does not disappear because the agency changes its policy preference. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The agency needs to quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it honestly against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. We need all the firefighters we have and more. Adding ignition risk through new roads is the wrong direction. The agency also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The courts that reviewed that question held otherwise. The Tenth Circuit stated: "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." The agency should address that holding squarely, explain its position on the Tenth Circuit's conclusion that the rule was within the authority Congress granted, and not treat a settled legal question as if it remains open. The rule as written already includes exceptions. It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of "reserved or outstanding rights" or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3). If the claimed permitting and administrative burdens are real, the agency should be able to name them specifically and show why those existing exceptions do not already address them. A vague assertion of burden is not a sufficient basis for rescinding a rule built on more than 1.6 million public comments and over 600 public meetings, with no comparable process held to undo it. Tony Grove and the surrounding old growth forest in Logan Canyon is a place where people in this community celebrate special occasions and restore themselves. Newly married couples have their pictures taken there. Families spread the ashes of loved ones there. It is a long tradition going back to indigenous people, to the age of trappers, through the earliest settlers. To lose these forests, including the roadless areas of the Wasatch-Cache that protect them, would be a wound to our hearts. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. That is a legacy this generation did not build alone and has no right to liquidate. The agency must account for what rescission would cost the people who depend on these places, not just those who would profit from access to them. Sincerely, Marcia Baker River Heights, Utah