Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-268272

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

In short: The comment establishes that the Draft EIS's wildfire and economic justifications for rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule are unsupported by ignition data and fiscal analysis, and requests a modified alternative that retains 36 CFR 294 Subpart B with specific amendments for wildland-urban interface treatment, road-density neutrality, and procedural compliance with NEPA, ESA, and ANILCA.

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, Alternative, 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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale is not supported by the ignition record”
- “road construction is not a net reduction in risk”
- “treatment geography does not match the stated purpose”
- “authorize treatment and roads within the wildland-urban interface”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “interior forest birds, wild brook trout, and the world's richest plethodontid salamander fauna”
- “likely adverse effect to 327 listed species and 71 critical habitats”
- “fraction of the ecological cost”
- “retain 36 CFR 294 Subpart B”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The economics do not close”
- “timber revenue would not cover building and maintaining new project roads”
- “lost recreation benefit”
- “net fiscal effect inclusive of maintenance liability”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “forest plan backstop assumption is not supported”
- “Complete ESA Section 7 consultation before a final rule”
- “Complete ANILCA Section 810 findings before the decision”
- “amend it: (a) authorize treatment... (b) delegate 294.13(b)(1) determinations”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR 294 5 U.S.C. 553

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Comment on Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation RIN 0596-AD66 | Docket No. FS-2025-0001 | 91 FR 53827 I oppose Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 and ask the Department to develop a modified alternative in the Final EIS. A fuller comment with citations is attached. This is not an argument for "no action." The preamble identifies real problems, including inconsistent use of the existing exceptions. Those support amending the rule, not rescinding it. 1. The wildfire rationale is not supported by the ignition record. Aplet et al. (2026, Fire Ecology 22:8) matched all National Forest System ignitions from 1992 to 2024 to the agency's road layer. Ignition density was 7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares within 50 meters of a road, against 1.97 in inventoried roadless areas and 1.75 in wilderness, a gradient holding in all eight contiguous-U.S. regions. The largest 2% of fires, which drive nearly all area burned, showed no meaningful size difference by origin. The DEIS reports the same pattern, and that Forest Service fire scientists caution additional roads could increase human-caused ignitions. If roads do not shrink the fires that threaten communities but reliably increase ignitions, road construction is not a net reduction in risk. The Final EIS should quantify the net change in annual ignitions under each alternative. 2. The treatment geography does not match the stated purpose. The rule states that 24% of affected roadless areas overlap the wildland-urban interface. Roughly 76% do not. Rescission would expand management opportunity on about 4.8 million acres, a gain the rule itself calls modest. Cohen (2000) and Calkin et al. (2014) show structure ignition is governed by the home ignition zone, not stands kilometers upslope. An alternative scoped to the interface would capture nearly all that benefit at a fraction of the ecological cost. 3. The forest plan backstop assumption is not supported. The rule identifies 18.2 million acres where plans already permit permanent roads and only the 2001 Rule prohibits them, measuring how much protection rests on the rule, not on plans. Where a plan is silent, rescission removes the only constraint, and plans are amendable by the same officials proposing the projects. The rule concedes amendments could expand effects beyond those analyzed, then treats that foreseeable consequence as outside scope. Under NEPA it is not. 4. The economics do not close. Under the Department's own upper bound, harvesting all newly operable acreage annually yields $4.6 to $10.6 million per year to industry, against roughly $6.1 million in lost recreation benefit, a DEIS finding that timber revenue would not cover building and maintaining new project roads, and a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. The Final EIS should present net fiscal effect inclusive of maintenance liability. 5. On access, the diagnosis is misplaced. The 2001 Rule closes nothing and does not prohibit fire suppression, prescribed fire, non-commercial thinning requiring no new road, or motorized use of existing routes. Access lost over two decades has gone to travel management and deferred maintenance on the existing road system. 6. Requested alternative. Retain 36 CFR 294 Subpart B and amend it: (a) authorize treatment and roads within the wildland-urban interface or 1.5 miles of an at-risk community, temporary roads only absent Regional Forester approval, restored within three years; (b) delegate 294.13(b)(1) determinations to forest supervisors with national guidance and decision timelines; (c) require road-density neutrality, offsetting each new permanent mile with one decommissioned on the same unit; (d) use the Idaho (2008) and Colorado (2012) rules as the model for place-based variation through petitions under 5 U.S.C. 553(e), which already show flexibility does not require repeal; (e) carry forward co-stewardship concepts raised in Tribal consultation; (f) require annual reporting of miles built, miles decommissioned, and acres treated. 7. Procedural requests. Extend the comment period to 90 days; thirty is well below the 60-90 customary for a 333-page Draft EIS. Complete ESA Section 7 consultation before a final rule, given the preliminary determination of likely adverse effect to 327 listed species and 71 critical habitats. Complete ANILCA Section 810 findings before the decision. Address reliance interests built over 25 years by outfitters, state agencies, and community wildfire planning. Virginia's roughly 394,000 roadless acres on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests are not fire-deficit western systems. They matter for interior forest birds, wild brook trout, and the world's richest plethodontid salamander fauna. The Final EIS should analyze Eastern Region roadless areas separately. Thank you for considering these comments. Ryan Pranschke Wildlife & Landscape Photographer and Conservationist Aldie, Virginia