Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-605259

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS fails to disclose the specific water quality effects of the Proposed Action on municipal water intakes in the Intermountain Region, specifically citing the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities' reliance on the Wasatch Mountains, and argues that the incomplete analysis violates NEPA and 36 CFR part 219.

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
- “decrease in water quality”
- “sediment delivered to surface waters is a major source of water quality degradation”
- “protecting our water quality and our public health”
- “maintain and improve watershed status”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The DEIS discloses who is exposed and never discloses what happens to them”
- “the finding the FEIS must make”
- “cannot be evaluated against that requirement on a record that states no effect”
- “cannot supply the effects disclosure NEPA requires”
Public Health Wellbeing
- “24 million people utilize water which originates within potentially affected inventoried roadless areas”
- “forcing intake shutdowns and reliance on alternate supply”
- “put our regional water quality at risk for 400,000 users”
- “Protecting our water quality and our public health is the foremost responsibility”

What it names

Law cited: 161 F.3d 1208 161 F.3d 1208 36 CFR part 219 490 U.S. 332 490 U.S. 332

The comment

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

Under "Effects of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action," the subsection "Municipal Water Use" at p. 131 reads in its entirety, as to the finding: "If additional road construction or timber harvest result in a decrease in water quality, and or reduce the efficacy of water treatment." That is a conditional clause with no main clause. It names a possible cause and stops before stating any consequence. Every sentence that follows it reports exposure - how many people draw water from these watersheds - not effect. Alternative 1 receives one sentence, at p. 130: "Alternative 1, in general, has little risk of potential adverse effects and provides the greatest protection of water quality." Alternative 3's discussion at p. 132 cross-references Alternative 2 and repeats the exposure count in Table 36. The result is that the DEIS discloses who is exposed and never discloses what happens to them. The DEIS supplies the mechanism itself, one page earlier, and does not carry it forward. At p. 130 it states: "Road construction and native surface forest roads are the largest source of sediment related to timber harvest operations, and sediment delivered to surface waters is a major source of water quality degradation." Rescinding the prohibition permits road construction and timber harvest in the very watersheds the DEIS has already identified as containing municipal intakes. Increased sediment and turbidity in a surface-water source raise treatment cost and can exceed treatment capacity during storm and post-disturbance runoff, forcing intake shutdowns and reliance on alternate supply. That is the sentence the DEIS began at p. 131 and did not finish, and it is the finding the FEIS must make. The scale of what is undisclosed is the DEIS's own. At pp. 129-130 it reports that "there are more than 7,000 municipal water intakes within watersheds containing potentially affected inventoried roadless areas" and that "Approximately 24 million people utilize water which originates within potentially affected inventoried roadless areas," with Table 35 breaking that out by region. For the Proposed Action the DEIS states that "The Intermountain Region is also affected in that over 1 million people receive water directly from watersheds containing inventoried roadless areas" (p. 131) - and then states no effect on them. The record contains a named, quantified system inside that figure. The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities told the agency (DEIS Vol. III, pp. 246-247) that "Our community opposes any federal action that could put our regional water quality at risk for 400,000 users throughout the Salt Lake City metropolitan area," that "The Wasatch Mountains east of Salt Lake City provide 60% of our daily water supply," and that "Protecting our water quality and our public health is the foremost responsibility of our work at SLCDPU." Table 35 puts the entire Intermountain Region, which covers Utah, at 1,118,900 people served by intakes; the single system documented in the agency's own record is 400,000 of them, roughly a third of the region's whole intake-served population. "Salt Lake" appears once in Volume I of the DEIS, in a list of references cited under Recreation. "Wasatch" does not appear in Volume I at all. The obligation to make this finding is stated by the agency, in this document. At p. 127 the DEIS says: "The Forest Service is required to manage National Forest watersheds that supply municipal water under multiple use prescriptions in land management plans (36 CFR part 219)." A rescission that removes the rule-level prohibition on road construction across watersheds holding more than 7,000 municipal intakes cannot be evaluated against that requirement on a record that states no effect for any alternative. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998). The sentence that closes this section at p. 131 - "Most forest plans acknowledge the need for protections for municipal watersheds with plan components that have an overall management objective to maintain and improve watershed status" - does not supply the missing finding and cannot defer it. No plan component is identified, none is cited, and "most" concedes that some plans have none. The decision under review is made at the rule scale and made now: the prohibition either stands or is removed nationally, and the watersheds it currently covers either keep that protection or lose it on the effective date. Whatever a later project-level analysis may add, it cannot supply the effects disclosure NEPA requires for the decision actually before the agency.