Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-271579

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted August 26, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's justification for rescinding the Roadless Rule, citing DEIS Table 21 and Table 35 to demonstrate contradictions regarding wildfire risk and water quality, and requests that the agency reconcile these findings, quantify unaddressed administrative burdens, and assess the impact on small entities and reliance interests.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Topics

Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water”
- “watersheds feeding the national forests”
- “sediment loading in timber sales”
- “protecting the drinking water”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire and fuels management grounds”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely”
- “fire density on roaded land”
- “community wildfire protection”
Governance Policy Process
- “No comparable process has been held to undo it”
- “public is owed no equivalent deliberative process”
- “regulatory flexibility certification”
- “reliance interests in the current rule”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “lost recreation benefit”
- “outfitters, guides, and tour operators”
- “access the sacred spaces”
- “wonderful wildness is an extension of us”

What it names

National Forests: San Juan National Forest
Roadless areas: Rocky Mountain

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The national forest around Telluride is not background to my life; it is part of who I am and who my family is. Wilson Mesa, 1,205 acres in the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forest, is something I look out at regularly. Friends and family have climbed Mt. Wilson. The mesa and its wonderful wildness is an extension of us. I am also connected to Lizard Head, 5,261 acres in the San Juan National Forest, and Sunshine Mesa, 651 acres also in the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison, as part of the broader sweep of country around Telluride and into neighboring states that makes this nation magnificent. I grew up experiencing this beauty. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask the agency to address the following points. The agency justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own record says the opposite of what that justification requires. The DEIS 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." That finding is in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement, and the proposal does not explain why it departs from it. I ask that the agency reconcile the rescission with DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and explain in plain language why its own ignition data does not control here. The agency also claims the rule creates permitting and administrative burdens. But the rule as written already accommodates the things the agency says it cannot do. The agency's own analysis acknowledges: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. § 294.12(b)(1),(3)." If exceptions for public health, safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already built into the rule, the agency must say, specifically and by category, which burdens remain unaddressed by those exceptions and quantify them. A general claim of burden is not enough. My family's connection to these places rests in part on clean water. The watersheds feeding the national forests around Telluride and across the Rocky Mountain region supply 325 municipal water intakes according to DEIS Table 35. The agency's own analysis links road construction to sediment loading in timber sales. Everyone has a right to clean water. That should never be negotiated or compromised under any circumstances. I ask that the agency explain how rescission is consistent with protecting the drinking water that communities in this region depend on, and that it put that explanation into the record where it can be examined. We have a moral and legal responsibility to pass a better life onto our children so they can access the sacred spaces we have been able to call home. The 2001 rule was built on more than 600 public meetings and 1.6 million comments. No comparable process has been held to undo it. Colorado holds 326 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,407,277 acres. Whether Colorado's areas sit under the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule or the national rule, the question of what changes in their management deserves an honest answer in this record. I ask the agency to state clearly what, if anything, changes for Colorado roadless areas under this proposal and why the public is owed no equivalent deliberative process to the one that produced the rule being rescinded. The regulatory flexibility certification reaches a no-significant-impact conclusion by distributing costs across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year and acknowledges some firms may lose those receipts. The agency must withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in these areas, not the national average firm. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. My family's connection to Wilson Mesa, Lizard Head, and Sunshine Mesa, and the expectations we have built around their continued protection, are exactly the kind of reliance interest the agency invited and is legally required to weigh before changing course. This comment is such an interest, and the agency must identify and weigh it. Sincerely, Erin Kelly Telluride, CO