Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-559060

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the rescission proposal fails to adequately weigh the public health consequences for 1,466 municipal water intakes in Utah roadless watersheds, ignores prior judicial findings on the inadequacy of state-by-state approaches, and relies on a flawed regulatory flexibility certification that averages national losses rather than assessing specific small businesses in the affected areas.

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
- “Ninety years of skiing, hiking, hunting, fishing, and teaching in National Forests”
- “Opening them to road building would destroy the very quality that makes them worth going to”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Water Quality Quantity
- “watersheds draining these Utah mountains supply drinking water to communities”
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Road building accelerates erosion and sedimentation”
- “direct public health consequence”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit found that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”
- “The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule fell within authority Congress granted”
- “The rule already contains its own safety valve”
- “regulatory flexibility certification does not hold up”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “do not rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”
- “The roadless rule is what makes living and working in them special”
- “Rescinding it would be a permanent loss”
- “protect what is left of what I first found there”

What it names

Roadless areas: Lone Peak ContiguousTwin PeaksWhite Pine
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: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Ninety years of skiing, hiking, hunting, fishing, and teaching in National Forests give me standing to say this plainly: do not rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am 101 years old. I was one of the first National Forest-certified ski instructors back in the late 1940s, and I have spent nearly my entire life in these mountains. The roadless rule is what makes living and working in them special. I am filing this comment in opposition to the rescission proposed under Docket FS-2025-0001. The areas I know in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests in Utah, including Mt. Olympus at 9,982 acres, Mt. Aire at 9,681 acres, Twin Peaks at 6,157 acres, Lone Peak Contiguous at 874 acres, White Pine at 1,942 acres, and White Baldy at 1,702 acres, are the kind of terrain the 2001 rule was written to protect. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. These are not abstractions. They are the slopes and drainages where I have taught thousands of people to ski and where I have worked across generations. Opening them to road building would destroy the very quality that makes them worth going to. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. The agency's own record says otherwise. The USDA once stated its "dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule" and criticized its "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach." 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. That position was put before the courts, and it did not survive. The Ninth Circuit found that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values in ways a patchwork of state rules cannot prevent. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding on that point and explain specifically how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that court identified when the agency last attempted to replace the national rule with a state-by-state approach. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. That question was litigated. A federal appeals court, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, ruled to "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 Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule fell within authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must explain the basis for any contrary position it now holds. On the question of administrative burden, the rule already contains its own safety valve. 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)." The proposal treats rescission as though no middle ground exists, but the rule's text shows otherwise. I ask that the agency identify, with specificity, which burdens are not already addressed by the existing exceptions, and that it quantify those burdens in the record rather than assert them. The watersheds draining these Utah mountains supply drinking water to communities throughout the region. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, according to DEIS Table 35. Road building accelerates erosion and sedimentation. Losing the protection these roadless areas provide to those intake watersheds is a direct public health consequence the proposal does not adequately weigh. Finally, the regulatory flexibility certification does not hold up. 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. I have watched outfitters and guides build their livelihoods around these roadless slopes for decades. Averaging an annual expenditure loss of $9 million across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than looking at the permit-holders actually operating in these areas, produces a meaningless number. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a genuine assessment of the small businesses whose operations depend on the specific roadless areas at risk. I have spent nearly ninety years in these forests. The roadless rule protects what is left of what I first found there. Rescinding it would be a permanent loss. Sincerely, Junior Bounous Provo, Utah