Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-311976

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 3, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's analysis contains specific deficiencies regarding the impact on small entities, the failure to weigh reliance interests, a contradiction in fire risk data (DEIS Table 21), and the failure to apply cited habitat fragmentation percentages to the 40.1 million acres of affected land.

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
- “forest biodiversity I seek out”
- “encroachment of roads and development into wild country is the central threat to the wildlife”
- “big game habitat was a documented concern”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “backpacking and hiking in the Mount Hood National Forest”
- “trails I use, including the Wonderland and Discovery Trails”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “permit holder whose livelihood depends on a specific roadless area”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land”
- “human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads”
- “road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires”
- “quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “regulatory flexibility analysis cannot withstand scrutiny”
- “incomplete analysis under established administrative law”
- “identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments”
- “certifies no significant impact on small entities”

What it names

National Forests: Gifford Pinchot National Forest

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forest biodiversity I seek out when backpacking and hiking in the Mount Hood National Forest and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest is exactly what this proposal puts at risk, and I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). When I go into those forests I am looking for bears, mountain goats, eagles and osprey. The encroachment of roads and development into wild country is the central threat to the wildlife I search for and to the trails I use, including the Wonderland and Discovery Trails. That is not a generalized concern: the agency's own data confirm it for the species I named. The DEIS draws on the federal grizzly recovery plan to establish that the increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and that shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. Bears and roads are incompatible in precisely the way the rule's framers understood. The agency owes the public a direct response, on the record, to how that finding is squared with a proposal that opens this territory to road construction. Mountain goats appear in my experience of these forests, and big game habitat was a documented concern during the alternatives analysis. Alternative 3 exists because commenters asked to keep protections for big game habitat, fisheries and wildlife connectivity. The agency built that alternative and chose the one that protects none of it. I ask the agency to explain its reasons for rejecting Alternative 3, specifically in terms of big game and wildlife connectivity, and to respond to that choice in writing. The regulatory flexibility analysis cannot withstand scrutiny. 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 an expenditure 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 agency concedes some of those firms may lose these receipts. A national average does not describe a permit holder whose livelihood depends on a specific roadless area. I ask the agency to withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. The proposal also creates a legal gap it does not attempt to fill. 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. Decades of planning by recreationists, outfitters and conservation organizations has proceeded on the assumption that the 2001 rule would hold. This comment is one such reliance interest. Inviting the public to describe reliance and then placing no weight on the responses is an incomplete analysis under established administrative law. I ask the agency to identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. The fire rationale offered for this proposal is contradicted by the agency's own numbers. 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 effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. The agency cannot simultaneously argue that new roads reduce fire hazard and report a ratio of nearly 7 to 1 between roaded and roadless ignition rates without explaining the contradiction. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. Finally, the fragmentation finding in the DEIS is cited and then abandoned. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. No projection across the 40.1 million potentially affected acres follows. A range that wide applied to an area that large carries consequences the analysis does not attempt to describe. The biodiversity I travel to Mount Hood and the Gifford Pinchot to experience is part of that 40.1 million acres. The agency must apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment before this proposal can be finalized. Sincerely, Phillip Vincent Tualatin, Oregon