Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-295332

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data (DEIS Table 21), economic net benefits, and water quality impacts on 378 municipal intakes, while citing Tenth Circuit and Ninth Circuit precedents to challenge the legal and procedural basis for rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in specific forests in Tennessee.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “most biodiverse temperate forests in North America”
- “salamander species found nowhere else on Earth”
- “These species need undeveloped land”
- “black bear, hellbender, brook trout, cerulean warbler”
Water Quality Quantity
- “We need clean water for the survival of every living species”
- “378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “Fewer than 12 percent of the watersheds fed by these roadless areas have impaired streams today”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Being out in nature, among wildlife, in the peace and quiet is essential for my mental health”
- “I hike and camp all over east Tennessee”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “So do I. We need natural, undeveloped land for our survival”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency has tried replacing this rule with local decision-making before, and that attempt failed in court”
- “The Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “The agency's own record undermines the case for rescission at every turn”

What it names

National Forests: Cherokee National Forest Nantahala National Forest
Roadless areas: Brushy RidgeCheoah BaldDeep Creek / Avery Creek AdditionJoyce Kilmer Slickrock Add.

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Being out in nature, among wildlife, in the peace and quiet is essential for my mental health. I hike and camp all over east Tennessee, western North Carolina, north Georgia, and southern Kentucky and Virginia. The roadless areas I am writing about sit inside that country: Joyce Kilmer Slickrock Add. in Cherokee National Forest, Brushy Ridge in Cherokee, and Snowbird, Cheoah Bald, Yellowhammer Branch, and Deep Creek / Avery Creek Addition in Nantahala National Forest. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Nantahala holds 14 inventoried roadless areas totaling 52,304 acres. The Cherokee holds 18 inventoried roadless areas totaling 84,881 acres. The southern Appalachians are among the most biodiverse temperate forests in North America. More tree species grow here than in all of northern Europe. The last wild headwaters of rivers flowing to both the Atlantic and the Gulf run through these forests, along with salamander species found nowhere else on Earth. The Cherokee has numerous species of wildlife. The Nantahala carries black bear, hellbender, brook trout, cerulean warbler, more than 30 endemic salamander species, and the northern long-eared bat. These species need undeveloped land. So do I. We need natural, undeveloped land for our survival. That is not a philosophical position; it is a practical one. The agency's own record undermines the case for rescission at every turn. The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. The agency's own 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The proposal justifies rescission in part on timber economics and employment. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency needs to explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency has tried replacing this rule with local decision-making before, and that attempt failed in court. The record states: "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time it substituted a state-by-state approach for one national rule, and address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. The proposal argues the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's authority. That question has already been litigated. The Tenth Circuit held: "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 agency must address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the 2001 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, and explain the basis for any contrary position it now takes. We need clean water for the survival of every living species on this planet. Across the Southern region, which includes Tennessee, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Fewer than 12 percent of the watersheds fed by these roadless areas have impaired streams today. Rescinding this rule puts that record at risk. The agency must address what happens to those intakes and to water quality in these specific watersheds if the protections fall. Sincerely, Suzanne Peters [Knoxville, TN]