Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-605608

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 2001 rule is inconsistent with its own draft EIS findings on wildfire ignition rates, water quality impacts from road sediment, and economic cost-benefit analyses, while also raising legal concerns regarding the Tenth Circuit's validation of the rule's statutory authority and procedural deficiencies in the public comment process.

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
- “wild, unroaded landscapes I want my children and their children to be able to experience”
- “backcountry I depend on, the places that are still genuinely wild”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “We do not want more roads, development, mining, or logging on our public lands”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Watersheds need to be kept pure”
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “opening these watersheds to road construction serves the public interest in clean drinking water”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “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”
- “increasing fire risk”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “The agency cannot ask the public to comment on consequences it has simultaneously placed outside the scope of its own analysis”
- “process debt alone warrants withdrawal of this proposal”

What it names

National Forests: Uinta National Forest Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Roadless areas: Mill CreekTwin PeaksWhite Pine
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 knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

The Wasatch and Uinta mountains are where I hike and camp, and protecting those places is exactly why I am filing this comment. Mill Creek Canyon in the Uinta National Forest, White Pine and Twin Peaks in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, these are the wild, unroaded landscapes I want my children and their children to be able to experience. The proposal before the agency would put all of that at risk, and the agency's own record makes clear it should not proceed. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. These are not abstract acres. They are the backcountry I depend on, the places that are still genuinely wild precisely because roads have not reached them. More and more land is developed and destroyed, increasing fire risk, increasing watershed contamination, decreasing wildlife and plant populations. Rescinding the 2001 rule accelerates every one of those trends, and the agency's own analysis says so. On wildfire, the agency's record states plainly: "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 nonetheless justifies rescission on fuels management grounds, which inverts what the agency's own findings show. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. Watersheds need to be kept pure. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. By the agency's own data, roads and their facilities contribute directly to contamination. The agency has acknowledged that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. How can that be justified when everyone needs access to clean water now more than ever? I want the agency to explain, specifically and on the record, how opening these watersheds to road construction serves the public interest in clean drinking water. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency's own record acknowledges: "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 agency's cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from this action by its own numbers. It must reconcile the proposal with that analysis and explain what economic rationale remains. On the question of statutory authority, a court already answered it. 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 agency argues the 2001 rule exceeded its authority, but the Tenth Circuit found the 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 must state, plainly and with legal support, the basis for any position contrary to that holding. Finally, the proposal itself acknowledges that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them. The agency cannot ask the public to comment on consequences it has simultaneously placed outside the scope of its own analysis. The foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including expanded timber harvest area, must be analyzed as part of this action, not deferred. We do not want more roads, development, mining, or logging on our public lands. These lands should be left as wild spaces and backcountry. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and received 1.6 million comments before it put the 2001 rule in place. It has held none to undo it. That process debt alone warrants withdrawal of this proposal. Sincerely, Michelle Richardson Sandy, Utah