Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-453034

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's record contains contradictory findings regarding moose habitat, water quality, and wildfire risk, and that the proposal fails to properly assess small business impacts or weigh stated reliance interests in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta national forests.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “best for moose habitat”
- “moose are drawn to road corridors for road salt”
- “recovery of deer and moose populations”
- “roadless protection supports population recovery”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Snowmelt is our largest source of water”
- “dramatically affect our water quality”
- “increase costs of water treatment”
- “municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “DEIS reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “hiking in the Mt. Olympus area for nearly 30 years”
- “spend about 25% of our outdoor time there”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”

What it names

Roadless areas: Twin PeaksWhite Pine
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Roadless areas in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta national forests are not abstract policy to me. We have been hiking in the Mt. Olympus area for nearly 30 years. We hike Mt. Aire a couple times a year because it is a great connection between Parley's Canyon and Millcreek Canyon and has been relatively untouched so far by development. We live near both Twin Peaks and Lone Peak and spend about 25% of our outdoor time there. We photograph throughout the Wasatch Range and the Uintas, including White Pine, Twin Peaks, and Mt. Olympus. Our college-age son has recently taken up hiking again in a serious way and has been helping with inventory of rock glaciers in the White Pine area. This is not distant wilderness to us. It is where we spend our lives outdoors. This area of the country may be the best for moose habitat. We have been all over the US and have never seen a higher concentration of moose. That matters here because the agency's own record is not neutral on what roads do to moose. The DEIS notes moose are drawn to road corridors for road salt, which increases human-moose interactions and conflict. The Tribal Summary Impact Statement credits the rule's protection with the recovery of deer and moose populations in Alaska by preserving old-growth winter shelter. If the agency is aware that road access draws moose into conflict zones and that roadless protection supports population recovery, I ask that it explain how rescission is consistent with those findings. On water, our situation is direct. Snowmelt is our largest source of water. Opening up these canyons to logging or mining could dramatically affect our water quality and could dramatically increase costs of water treatment. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. The people drinking water that starts in those watersheds are not a small constituency. The agency must address the water treatment cost consequences of rescission on the record. On fire, the agency's own record cuts against the proposal. "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." The proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds while its own DEIS reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside these areas. The agency must reconcile those findings with the decision it is proposing. The proposal also overstates what the rule actually prevents. The text of the rule reads: "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 agency's true concern is permitting burden or access for legitimate uses, those exceptions already exist. I ask that the agency identify, specifically and on the record, which burdens are not already addressed by those provisions, and that it quantify them. The small-business analysis in this proposal does not hold together. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." Spreading an annual expenditure loss across every small firm nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides actually permitted in these areas is not analysis. It is evasion. The certification should be withdrawn and replaced with an assessment of the businesses actually operating in the affected areas, including in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta national forests where we recreate. Finally, we have raised children in these places. We hiked in all of these areas with our kids when they were growing up. They are now adults and ready to have their own kids. Our grandchildren may not have the same opportunities as our kids did. That is a reliance interest. "The proposal solicits 'any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal' (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none." The agency invited these interests and then declined to weigh them. It must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one.