Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579528

Supports rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the Roadless Rule has been used to close roads and trails in 12 Mile Canyon near Gunnison, Utah, and that standing dead timber near Wolf Creek Pass remains unharvested due to roadless designations, while asserting the commenter's standing as a professional geologist, local trail coordinator, and motorized user.

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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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

Topics

Public Land Access Rights
- “I value motorized access to our forests”
- “I am for allowing access for timber harvesting”
- “I use motorized access in a truck, a UTV, on a motorcycle to access the forest”
- “anti access groups have used the roadless rule in countless lawsuits”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “I am for allowing access for timber harvesting as well as fire mitigation operations”
- “Active fire management requires roads”
- “observed the large amount of standing dead timber”
- “This timber could be harvested in a salvage operation”
Governance Policy Process
- “I am for allowing local rangers to make decisions on local forests”
- “rather than one size fits all managment directives from Washington DC”
- “Repealing this rule will safe the Forest money in the long run”
- “allow for more efficient and timely management”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “constructing new trails for motorized and non motorized use”
- “More recreational opportunities require roads and trails”
- “close roads and trails that were used by me and my family”
- “300 plus members of the Utah Trail Machine Association”

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

I am for rescinding the Roadless rule. I have see it used in Forest Plan and Travel Management plans to close roads and trails that were used by me and my family since the 1940s in 12 mile Canyon near Gunnison, Utah. I value motorized access to our forests. I also am in favor of constructing new trails for motorized and non motorized use for our growing population. I also believe we can utilized good judgement and management practices to build and maintain roads and trails. As a professional geologist and the local county trail coordinator I have had both scientific and on the ground training and experience in designing, building and maintaining trails. If the Forest Service's own guidance documents and best management practices are followed, trails and narrow forest roads can be build to have very little impact on watersheds. I am for allowing access for timber harvesting as well as fire mitigation operations on our forests. I am for allowing local rangers to make decisions on local forests regarding roads rather than one size fits all managment directives from Washington DC. Many anti access groups have used the roadless rule in countless lawsuits on proposed forest projects and on forest travel management plans, resulting in financial resources being pulled away from critical forest service tasks and spent on lawsuits. Repealing this rule will safe the Forest money in the long run and allow for more efficient and timely management. I recently traveled over the Wolfcreek pass in Utah between Kamas and Hanna and observed the large amount of standing dead timber for miles and miles along the highway. The fire was over two summers ago. This timber could be harvested in a salvage operation but I suspect that it is in a roadless are and therefor will not be harvested and will be allowed to fall and create a labyrinth of dead and rotting trees almost impossible to hike through. I think this is such a waste of a resource. I think forests should have active management in non-wilderness areas. Active management requires roads. Active fire management requires roads. More recreational opportunities require roads and trails. I am a senior and no longer am spry enough to hike 5-10 miles for hunting and backpacking. I use motorized access in a truck, a UTV, on a motorcycle to access the forest. Roads and trails are very important to me, my family and also to the 300 plus members of the Utah Trail Machine Association, of which I am the vice president of. Those are my thoughts on the roadless rule. I agree with the aguments and facts presented by groups like UPLA and Blue Ribbon Coalition that I belong to. Sincerely Wes Thompson P.G.