Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-283664

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted August 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record a specific contradiction between the small-business certification and the DEIS's own cost-benefit analysis regarding lost recreation benefits, while identifying eight specific roadless areas and requesting site-specific environmental analysis and an alternative retaining the 2001 rule's protections.

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
    • “I hike, camp, and backpack extensively trough roadless areas”
    • “peace and freedom these lands offer is unparalleled”
    • “hiked a portion of the Continental Divide Trail”
    • “small outfitters and guides who work this same country”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “loss of biodiversity/wildlife habitat”
    • “pristine wildlife habitat”
    • “land and water degradation”
    • “preserving this quintessentially American public asset”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “increases the likelihood of destructive effects, such as wildfires”
    • “evacuated from my home during the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon fire”
    • “does not need the increased fire risk”
    • “burdens that come with it that the current proposals will force onto us”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences”
    • “small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it”
    • “ask that the agency withdraw the certification”
    • “analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections”

What it names

National Forests
Cibola National ForestGila National ForestRio Grande National ForestSanta Fe National ForestSanta Fe National Forest
Roadless areas
Bear MountainCandian RiverEnchanted LakesSawyers PeakValle Del ToroWillow Creek
Law cited
36 CFR 294

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I hike, camp, and backpack extensively trough roadless areas, and the peace and freedom these lands offer is unparalleled. Maintaining the roadless status of these lands is essential to preserving this quintessentially American public asset for our children for generations to come. My wife and I hiked a portion of the Continental Divide Trail (a National Scenic Trail, established by congress) for our honeymoon. Over 300 miles of the CDT pass through pristine roadless lands on superb trails. Public land should NOT be exploited for the profit of private profiteers who have not stepped foot in these lands and appreciated their unique assets. By building roads through these lands, it increases the amount of human-wilderness boundary and thus increases the likelihood of destructive effects, such as wildfires, floods, land and water degradation, and loss of biodiversity/wildlife habitat. My wife and I recently welcomed our son to our family, and it would make me proud to pass down an America to his generation that has the heritage, history, integrity, and beauty of its public lands intact. The current proposal forces mismanagement onto our public lands and is threat to our American heritage. I live near roadless areas in the Santa Fe National Forest and was evacuated from my home during the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon fire. Our community does not need the increased fire risk and the burdens that come with it that the current proposals will force onto us. My family has hiked in the Mt Evans area many times and some of our fondest memories come from camping near Abyss Lake, watching the sunsets and sunrises kiss the glorious peaks of Mt Bierstadt and Mt Blue Sky, crown jewels of America's public lands. The Gila is an amazing place to go backpacking, with some of the most pristine wildlife habitat (and its resultant wildlife) I have ever seen. The Bear Mountain area is local to me, and my family and I hike here frequently, taking in the freedom and relaxation that a roadless area provides and enjoying the resurgent forest and its wildflowers and wildlife. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas: - Mt. Evans Adjacent Area (10,247 acres), Arapaho-Roosevelt NF, Colorado - Enchanted Lakes (1,276 acres), Santa Fe NF, New Mexico - Bennet Mountain / Blowout / Willow Creek / Lion Point / Gree (53,053 acres), Rio Grande NF, Colorado - Contiguous To Black & Aldo Leopold Wilderness (111,883 acres), Gila NF, New Mexico - Sawyers Peak (59,743 acres), Gila NF, New Mexico - Candian River (7,149 acres), Cibola NF, New Mexico - Bear Mountain (1,387 acres), Santa Fe NF, New Mexico - Valle Del Toro (1,862 acres), Santa Fe NF, New Mexico I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. Some of the areas named above lie in Idaho or Colorado, where the state-specific roadless rules at 36 CFR 294 Subparts C and D are stated to be retained. For those areas I ask that the agency state in the DEIS precisely how this action interacts with the retained state rules and what, if anything, changes in their management. Additionally, I raise the following issue for the record and ask that the agency respond to these concerns: Issue: 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. 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 for the areas named above. 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, Calj Umezono Las Vegas, NM

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless