Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-312842

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS Table 21 and Cost Benefit Analysis contradict the proposed rescission by showing higher fire density on roaded lands and $6.1 million in annual lost recreation benefits, while the regulatory flexibility certification fails to assess concentrated impacts on local small entities and ignores solicited reliance interests.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the proposed rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The regulatory flexibility certification that accompanies this proposal is difficult to square with the agency's own economic analysis”
- “The agency must withdraw this certification, assess the impact on the small entities actually working in the potentially affected roadless areas”
- “An agency reversing a long-standing policy must account for what that policy's continuation led people to rely upon”
Water Quality Quantity
- “the clean water they protect”
- “Arizonans who depend on these areas for clean water and clean air”
Wildlife Habitat
- “the wildlife moving through them without the intrusion of machinery”
- “quiet of Arizona's roadless areas”

What it names

National Forests: Prescott National Forest
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 quiet of Arizona's roadless areas, the clean water they protect, the wildlife moving through them without the intrusion of machinery: these are not abstractions. They are what I go to the Prescott National Forest to find, and they exist because the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has held. I oppose the proposed rescission of that rule, and I ask the agency to answer each of the following points on its own record. The agency's justification rests in part on the claim that rescission serves wildfire management, but its own prior findings cut directly against that logic. 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 Prescott National Forest and the roadless areas I hike within it are places where that ignition differential matters. I want to know how the agency justifies departing from this finding, and I ask that it reconcile the proposed rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, explaining specifically why opening these areas to roads would reduce rather than increase fire risk. The agency also claims administrative and permitting burdens justify elimination of the rule, but the rule as written already accommodates the uses the agency now treats as blocked. The agency's own text acknowledges it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Those exceptions are not narrow loopholes. They address public health, safety, existing mineral rights, and community wildfire protection. The agency has not explained which specific burdens fall outside these categories, and I ask that it identify them by name, quantify them, and demonstrate that they cannot be addressed without discarding the rule entirely. The regulatory flexibility certification that accompanies this proposal is difficult to square with the agency's own economic analysis. 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 certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by diffusing losses across the national population of firms in the sector, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas and who would bear the concentrated loss. I use these areas in part because skilled guides and outfitters operate there, and their viability is tied to the continued protection the rule provides. The agency must withdraw this certification, assess the impact on the small entities actually working in the potentially affected roadless areas rather than the national average firm, and publish that revised analysis for public comment. Finally, the agency has invited reliance interests and then declined to weigh them. 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. My own investment in these landscapes, in planning my time in Arizona's roadless areas with the expectation that the rule's protections would hold, is exactly the kind of interest the invitation contemplates. Arizonans who depend on these areas for clean water and clean air have organized their expectations around a rule that has been in place for more than two decades. An agency reversing a long-standing policy must account for what that policy's continuation led people to rely upon. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it proceeds any further with this proposal. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your City, State]