Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-301831

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 2, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding sediment load on the Red River, wildfire ignition statistics from DEIS Table 21, and the regulatory flexibility analysis for small entities, while asserting a reliance interest in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “shelters over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats”
    • “federally endangered species”
    • “Every one of those species depends on habitat conditions that road construction disrupts”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “headwater streams feed the Red River”
    • “road-induced sedimentation in that area is not an abstract national statistic but a direct threat”
    • “preserve the quality of water in nature”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land”
    • “quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “The Red River Gorge is where I hike”
    • “books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
    • “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”

What it names

National Forests
Daniel Boone National Forest
Roadless areas
Wolfpen

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 The Red River Gorge is where I hike, in the Daniel Boone National Forest, and the landscape I walk through depends directly on the protections this rule has provided. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that at risk, and I am filing this comment in opposition to Docket FS-2025-0001. Kentucky holds exactly one inventoried roadless area under the 2001 rule: the Wolfpen area, 2,835 acres whose headwater streams feed the Red River, the state's only National Wild and Scenic River. That is the entirety of Kentucky's roadless inventory. The sandstone country around the Red River Gorge also shelters over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. Verified sensitive species in the Daniel Boone include the Indiana bat, the northern long-eared bat, the Kentucky arrow darter, and the blackside dace. Every one of those species depends on habitat conditions that road construction disrupts. I ask the agency to explain on the record what site-specific analysis it conducted for Wolfpen before proposing to remove protections from what is, for Kentucky, a singular and irreplaceable landscape. Water is a critical resource of growing importance to all Americans, and it is essential that we preserve the quality of water in nature. The Wolfpen roadless area protects the headwaters that feed the Red River, which means road-induced sedimentation in that area is not an abstract national statistic but a direct threat to a named Wild and Scenic River corridor. The agency's own prior analysis found that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The proposal does not explain how Kentucky's sole roadless area, positioned at the headwaters of its only protected river, is supposed to absorb that sediment load. I ask that the agency address this specific hydrology on the record. On the question of fire, the agency's own record is difficult to square with the proposal's direction. The DEIS 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 rescission is justified in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but the agency's own ignition data cuts the other direction: "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014–2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." The agency must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh that figure against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard before proceeding. The regulatory flexibility analysis presents a separate problem. 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. That certification is reached by spreading the loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The analysis itself concedes that some firms may lose these receipts. The certification should be withdrawn and the impact assessed against the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not an averaged national firm. Finally, 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. This comment is itself such an interest. The agency has an obligation, when changing course, to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Ralph Grove Louisville, KY

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