Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-295212

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's small-business certification contradicts its own DEIS findings regarding outfitters and guides, and that the agency failed to assess reliance interests despite soliciting them, while requesting the agency withdraw the certification, weigh reliance interests, and analyze 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

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “Let's keep our water clean”
- “Once it is contaminated, it is very expensive to fix”
- “Clean water is not only healthier, it is less expensive for municipalities to handle”
- “reap watershed... benefits”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “predators, as I know they are often indicators of ecosystem health”
- “reap watershed, biodiversity, atmospheric, and other benefits”
- “OUR public lands should be managed for US, and more importantly for our descendants”
- “They deserve the chance to visit them, yes, but also to reap... biodiversity... benefits”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hike in the Eastern Sierra...Virginia Lakes, Lundy Lakes, Convict Lake”
- “Any sort of stunning view with no sign of human construction just lifts my soul”
- “recreation dollars outstrip all other commercial use COMBINED”
- “I plan trips into these areas year after year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it”
- “Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests”
- “I 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: Sierra National Forest

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 hike in the Eastern Sierra...Virginia Lakes, Lundy Lakes, Convict Lake, Lake Winnemucca, and more. As a former wildlife biologist, I always hope to see any wildlife when I travel these areas. I especially thrill to see predators, as I know they are often indicators of ecosystem health. . Any sort of stunning view with no sign of human construction just lifts my soul. I imagine lands that ancient people traversed and survived on. I appreciate the depth of color of cliffs, forests, distant snow covered peaks, and shimmering aspen groves. OUR public lands should be managed for US, and more importantly for our descendants. They do not belong to "the local people" whose ancestors colonized it. They have no more right to it than an impoversished child in Chicago. They do not belong to mining, grazing, or timber interests. In fact, recreation dollars outstrip all other commercial use COMBINED. Our tax dollars should be used to reduce fuel loads, to hire more biologists and other researchers, and to support partner organizations in managing what we have. We don't need more roads. Let's keep our water clean. Once it is contaminated, it is very expensive to fix. Clean water is not only healthier, it is less expensive for municipalities to handle. Healthy people are more productive and place less burden on our strapped health care system. In what world is money more important than clean water. Our descendants, and the descendants of people who might, in this era, never have a chance to see these areas, deserve to have them protected. They deserve the chance to visit them, yes, but also to reap watershed, biodiversity, atmospheric, and other benefits. When smoke fills the air and we are asked to pay attention to whether we might need to evacuate, it is terrifying and heartbreaking. I have family members that work for the Forest Service, as have I, and they and I know the science behind best practices of Forest Management, and know that those best practices have been underfunded for decades due to so-called "trickle-down economics" that provide tax breaks to already insanely wealthy people and corporations. To know that we could have prevented many of these catastrophic fires with a relatively small (compared to the entire federal budget) infusion of money is infuriating. The country I am writing about includes the Sierra National Forest. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 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, Carole Holomuzki Carson City, Nevada