Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-592870

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific geographic locations in Utah and Wyoming, cites DEIS Table 21 and the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis to highlight internal contradictions regarding wildfire risks and economic net benefits, and requests the agency reconcile the rescission proposal with its own prior findings and legal holdings.

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 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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “land I want to remain untouched, wild, and beautiful”
- “wild ecosystems”
- “unbroken landscape that once opened by road does not return to what it was”
Water Quality Quantity
- “These areas matter for watersheds”
- “325 municipal water intakes in the Rocky Mountain region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in the prior attempt to substitute local decision-making”
- “agency must state on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “changes to the roadless rule could exacerbate fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”

What it names

National Forests: Targhee National Forest
Roadless areas: Rocky MountainWest Slope Tetons
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The wild and rough roads of my Utah, and the Teton and Yellowstone country, places I go to get away from people, to be with my family, and to experience nature as it has been left. The West Slope Tetons, 47,448 acres in the Targhee National Forest in Wyoming, is land I want to remain untouched, wild, and beautiful. These are the places worth protecting, and the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens all of them. I oppose this rescission. Our public land belongs to every American, present and future. That is not a sentiment; it is what the law has always recognized. These areas matter for watersheds, for wild ecosystems, and for what our children will be able to find and explore. Wyoming alone holds 116 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,243,958 acres, and 325 municipal water intakes in the Rocky Mountain region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own figures make the stakes concrete. The roadless areas spread across the Wasatch-Cache, Uinta, Dixie, Ashley, Fishlake, and Manti-La Sal National Forests in Utah, areas like the 355,684-acre Goose Egg Peak in the Ashley, the 121,967-acre Lakes area in the Wasatch-Cache, and the 110,690-acre Boulder Mtn. complex in the Dixie, represent a scale of unbroken landscape that once opened by road does not return to what it was. I have watched fire seasons tear through and strip the green from an area. It is devastating, but I have also seen groundcover and new trees spring from scorched land over time, because fire is part of nature and forest can regrow. What concerns me is that changes to the roadless rule could exacerbate fires and lead to incredible damage to recently burned or regrowth areas. 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." The proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire management grounds, yet this language is already in the agency's record. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21. The economic case offered for rescission does not hold together. The agency's own record states: "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." Against that, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system the agency already maintains carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must explain how expanding that system, for a resource share measured in fractions of a percent of national production, serves the public interest when its own analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The agency argues that state-specific approaches can replace one national rule. The record itself contains this: "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency has been down this road before. The Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in the prior attempt to substitute local decision-making for the national rule, on the specific grounds that local processes can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. How does this proposal avoid those same deficiencies? The agency has not said. Finally, the agency argues the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. That argument has already been tested. 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." The court found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted and held that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. These places deserve to stay wild. They should remain a treasure that can only be found with the patience, grit, and exploration it takes to get there. That is the gift we owe to our children, and it is what this rule, built on more than 600 public meetings and 1.6 million comments, was designed to preserve. The agency should not undo it without answering the questions its own record raises. Sincerely, Jon Mortensen Ogden, Utah 84403