Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-290670

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted August 31, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is arbitrary and capricious due to internal contradictions in economic and ecological data, unsupported Regulatory Flexibility Act certifications, incomplete Tribal consultations, and a failure to analyze reliance interests and public health impacts.

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Under State Farm, an agency must examine the relevant data”
- “Regulatory Flexibility Act certification is unsupported”
- “Regents requires the agency to assess and weigh it”
- “withdraw the proposed rule and retain 36 CFR part 294, subpart B”
Governance Policy Process
- “The process is incomplete”
- “Of 64 requested Tribal consultations, only 29 had been held”
- “extend the comment period to at least 120 days”
- “publish the exception-request record”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “Claimed timber revenue... is largely offset by... lost recreation benefit”
- “dwarfed by the Department's own $6.9 billion deferred road maintenance backlog”
- “converts a speculative one-time gain into a permanent unfunded liability”
- “estimating millions in annual losses falling on outfitters, guides, and recreation businesses”
Water Quality Quantity
- “chronic source of sediment in municipal watersheds”
- “source-water protection for communities that draw municipal supply”
- “Twenty-five years of reliance by water providers”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR part 294 5 U.S.C. 601 91 Fed. Reg. 53827 E.O. 13175

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

Docket FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 / 91 Fed. Reg. 53827 (Aug. 20, 2026) Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation -- Proposed Rescission I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Department to select the No Action alternative. I am a physician with 21 years of clinical experience, a father of two daughters, and a lifelong outdoorsman who has hunted, fished, hiked, camped, climbed, and biked across unroaded public land my entire life. I submit a detailed comment as an attachment and summarize its principal objections here. 1. The record does not show the 2001 Rule blocked needed management. The preamble asserts the Rule limited vegetation management but identifies no project denied or abandoned because of subpart B, no count of section 294.13(b) exception requests, and no data on the burden of that exception process. Under State Farm, an agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. That connection is absent. 2. The Department's own figures contradict its justification. The preamble calls the effects "modest and localized" (53829) while designating the rule economically significant with impacts that "could exceed $100 million" (53830). It finds no substantial direct effects on States but substantial direct effects on Tribes for the same action (53831). It justifies rescission by wildfire risk while conceding expanded access "can increase human-caused ignition potential" (53829), and never nets the two. It reports that only 24 percent of inventoried roadless acreage lies in the wildland-urban interface -- meaning 76 percent is not, and the remedy is grossly overbroad relative to the stated need. 3. The economics do not support the action. Claimed timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million per year is largely offset by an acknowledged $6.1 million per year in lost recreation benefit, and is dwarfed by the Department's own $6.9 billion deferred road maintenance backlog. Building new roads the agency cannot maintain converts a speculative one-time gain into a permanent unfunded liability and a chronic source of sediment in municipal watersheds. 4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act certification is unsupported. The Department certifies no significant impact on small entities two pages after estimating millions in annual losses falling on outfitters, guides, and recreation businesses that are small entities under 5 U.S.C. 601(6). It should withdraw the certification and prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 5. Reliance interests are solicited but never analyzed. Twenty-five years of reliance by water providers, state wildlife agencies, Tribes, and recreation-dependent businesses is identifiable and substantial. Regents requires the agency to assess and weigh it, not merely ask about it. 6. The process is incomplete. Of 64 requested Tribal consultations, only 29 had been held when this proposal published, and the Department itself found substantial direct effects on Tribes warranting consultation under E.O. 13175. ANILCA Section 810 subsistence hearings are scheduled after the comment period closes, so the public cannot comment on the subsistence findings. As a physician I would add that the preamble treats two public health questions as afterthoughts: source-water protection for communities that draw municipal supply from National Forest watersheds, and wildfire smoke exposure, which is fire's dominant health burden and is nowhere analyzed. Requests: withdraw the proposed rule and retain 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. In the alternative, extend the comment period to at least 120 days; complete all 64 Tribal consultations and the ANILCA Section 810 evaluation and reopen comment; withdraw the RFA certification; and publish the exception-request record, a forest-by-forest inventory of which plans would maintain roadless protections absent subpart B, and a reliance-interest analysis. Full comment attached. Stacy Johnson Salt Lake City, Utah August 30, 2026