Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-274610

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's regulatory flexibility analysis contradicts its own DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis by using national averages to certify no significant impact on small entities, and that the agency failed to assess the reliance interests it solicited from commenters, thereby documenting a procedural and analytical deficiency in the rescission proposal.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

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.
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.
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.
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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “paddling the BWCA”
- “hiked countless roadless area”
- “We all need wild places - to recreate, re-connect”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Clean water for over 7,000 cities comes from the watersheds”
- “drinks water from the Deschutes watersheds”
- “Muddying the water is dangerous”
- “clear flowing streams and rivers”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “small-business certification contradicts the analysis”
- “Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests”
- “ask that the agency withdraw the certification”
- “analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections”
Public Health Wellbeing
- “Research has concluded that wildness and nature are critical to human well-being”
- “Some doctors are already writing prescriptions for nature”
- “feel a small part of the entire planet”

What it names

National Forests: Hoosier National Forest Superior National Forest Willamette National Forest
Roadless areas: Three Sisters

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I grew up in the midwest, paddling the BWCA adjacent to the Superior NF's roadless areas, and hiking the Hoosier National Forest near Morgan Ridge. As an adult, I've hiked countless roadless area including the Three Sisters and other trails in the Deschutes and Willamette NF, I've paddled the Siuslaw Lakes, and photograghed many spectacular "roadless areas." On a recent outing in the Ochoco, I watched dozens of nighthawks catching insects and while gazing at South Sister spied a kestral catching an updraft. Roadless areas belong to all Americans - for the long term. They need to managed to exist for the long term. Changing laws, regulations and designations for a single generation is greedy, short-sighted and unsustainable. We all need wild places - to recreate, re-connect and feel a small part of the entire planet. Research has concluded that wildness and nature are critical to human well-being. Some doctors are already writing prescriptions for "nature." My tax money should be spent in more productive ways. With land management agencies already billions of dollars behind on preventative maintenance, 6.9 mil for USFS on road maintenance alone, there is no need to build more things to maintain. One failed culvert and cause millions of dollars of damage. After seeking and receiving over one and a half million comments to develop the roadless rule, why should this generatation/administration change it? I have two sons who are enthusiasts of wild places. One a photographer, the other a fly fisherman. These roadless areas need to remain roadless so their children, and possibly your own grandchildren, can inherit and experience them. Clean water for over 7,000 cities comes from the watersheds the encompass roadless areas. I have family that lives in Bend and drinks water from the Deschutes watersheds. Bend is a growing city that is surrounding by recreational opportunties and clear flowing streams and rivers. "Muddying the water" is dangerous for the ecosystem, the people and the outdoor recreation economy it supports. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it I hike and camp in these areas, and the small outfitters and guides who work this same country help people like me get out there. They deserve a real assessment. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and concedes some firms may lose these receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Issue 2: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I plan trips into these areas year after year, counting on the protection that keeps them what they are. That reliance is exactly what the agency asked commenters to describe. The proposal 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. Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule’s protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency’s own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Katherine Fuller Newport, Oregon