Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602038

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own DEIS data regarding wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit given the $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog, and lacks a legal basis to overturn prior Tenth Circuit holdings affirming the rule's validity under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “depend on the landscape... for clean water”
- “expose all of this to road construction and the impacts that follow”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “bring huge amounts of tourism income to Utah”
- “outdoor character that defines the place”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “premise that opening roadless areas to road construction serves fire management goals is not coherent”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit stated... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “agency has not explained in this proposal what legal basis supports a contrary position”

What it names

National Forests: Dixie National Forest Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Roadless areas: Boulder MountainTwin Peaks
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

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 Mount Olympus near Salt Lake City is a unique and special place for the million-plus people living in the region. I was married near Boulder Mountain, in the Dixie National Forest, and it is a gorgeous and special place that needs to remain protected. So many of the unique wild areas of Utah and surrounding states are protected by the roadless rule. The rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of these places, and the other roadless areas in Utah I am naming here, at serious risk. I oppose Docket FS-2025-0001 for the reasons below. These regions bring huge amounts of tourism income to Utah and contribute to making it the amazing and unique place that it is. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres, and across the Intermountain region 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The people of Salt Lake City depend on the landscape that includes the 9,982 acres around Mount Olympus and the 6,157 acres at Twin Peaks, both in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, for clean water and for the outdoor character that defines the place. The 110,690 acres of Boulder Mountain, Boulder Top, and Deer Lake, and the 19,581 acres of Table Cliffs and Henderson Canyon, both in the Dixie National Forest, are part of the same connected system of protection. Rescinding the rule would expose all of this to road construction and the impacts that follow. The agency's stated justification includes wildfire and fuels management, but its own record contradicts that rationale. The agency has found: "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." Given that finding, the proposal's premise that opening roadless areas to road construction serves fire management goals is not coherent. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and it must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. On economics, the agency has acknowledged: "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." The record projects timber revenue to the Forest Service 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 spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, while the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency has not shown that this action produces a net benefit, and it owes the public a direct accounting of how expanding a road system under those fiscal conditions is justified by the numbers in its own cost-benefit analysis. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for a national rule, but this path has been tried before. The agency's own record reflects "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." What the record does not explain is how a state-by-state replacement avoids the deficiencies that led a federal appellate court to reject that approach the last time the agency tried it, and the agency's prior own finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency should answer that question squarely. Finally, the proposal questions the statutory authority behind the 2001 rule. The courts that reviewed this directly 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 court found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency has not explained in this proposal what legal basis supports a contrary position, and it should.