Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-283285

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted August 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from DEIS Table 21 showing higher fire density on roaded lands, challenges the agency's regulatory flexibility certification regarding small entities in the Tuolumne River area, and asserts a reliance interest based on the agency's own solicitation for such 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I can only reach the scenes I care about by walking there”
- “What draws me to all of it is wildness that has not been cut open”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
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”
- “DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “The proposal leans on wildfire and fuels management as reasons to open these areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit concluded the rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “The agency needs to address that holding directly”
- “The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities while its own record states”
- “The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “I photograph rare species and beautiful California landscapes”
- “The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects that”
- “wildness that has not been cut open”
- “Tuolumne River roadless area sits inside the Sierra”

What it names

Roadless areas: Tuolumne River

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Tuolumne River roadless area sits inside the Sierra, and I can only reach the scenes I care about by walking there. That is the whole point. I backpack across the Sierra Nevada, through national parks, forests, and the lands between. I paddle the American and Sacramento Rivers. I photograph rare species and beautiful California landscapes with equal attention. What draws me to all of it is wildness that has not been cut open. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects that. This proposal to rescind it is wrong, and I want my objections in the record. The agency's own findings on fire undercut one of its central justifications. Its record 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." The proposal leans on wildfire and fuels management as reasons to open these areas. That argument runs directly into the agency's own data. DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The 17,217 acres of the Tuolumne River area are the kind of terrain at stake. I want a plain explanation of why the agency is departing from those prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with the ignition data it collected. On authority: the proposal claims the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress granted. A federal appeals court reviewed that question and held otherwise, writing: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 Tenth Circuit concluded 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 needs to address that holding directly and state the basis for any contrary position it now wants to advance. My view on management is straightforward. These lands have been working for many different groups of recreationists as well as industry for a long time. We should not discount what is already working for local economies to extract resources for someone else. That concern connects directly to a problem in the regulatory flexibility analysis. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities while its own record states: "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 certification is reached by spreading expenditure losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, not by looking at the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. That method hides the real impact on the businesses that depend on places like the Tuolumne River area remaining intact. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an honest assessment of the small entities operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the agency's own solicitation creates an obligation it has not met. 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 the standards courts have applied when agencies change course, those reliance interests must be identified and assessed, not invited and ignored. This comment is one such interest. People who have organized their recreation, their photography, and their understanding of what public land is for around the protection that rule provides have a stake in this decision. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Stephanie Jones Concord, CA