Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-322537

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 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 cost-benefit projections (FEIS 3-55 and CBA), and the methodology of the regulatory flexibility certification, while citing 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3) to demonstrate that existing regulatory exceptions already accommodate the cited administrative burdens.

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
- “cannot accept the agency's wildfire justification for this rescission at face value”
- “roads allow more agile positioning of firefighting assets, they are also the site of high rates of human-caused ignition”
- “DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The economic case for rescission is no stronger”
- “timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The legal and administrative burden rationale fares no better on the record”
- “The rule as written already contains flexibility”
- “The regulatory flexibility certification cannot stand”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I go there to decompress and camp with my kids”
- “We love waking up early to photograph the sunrise and catch any wildlife in the peaceful morning”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”

What it names

Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12
Works cited: Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012

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 forest is less than an hour from my home, and I go there to decompress and camp with my kids. We love waking up early to photograph the sunrise and catch any wildlife in the peaceful morning. That connection matters to me, and the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens the land that makes it possible. I watched the Eaton Canyon fire and saw the devastation left in its wake. Friends lost their homes. The air quality in our neighborhood was badly affected by the smoke. I understand firsthand what fire does to communities and landscapes, which is why I cannot accept the agency's wildfire justification for this rescission at face value. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement states: "While roads allow more agile positioning of firefighting assets, they are also the site of high rates of human-caused ignition (Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012), which account for 84% of US wildfires (Balch et al 2017)." DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency has not explained how expanding the road system reduces fire risk when its own data tie roads to ignition at those rates. I ask the agency to explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data already in the record. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record states: "By contrast, the Defendants estimate the timber industry supplies only 337 jobs, just one percent of regional employment, and $18.8 million, one percent of earnings, in the region today. Defendants project that, even with complete elimination of the Roadless Rule on the Tongass, the rule will not result in any new timber industry jobs on the Tongass over the next 100 years and regional economic impacts from the timber industry will remain the same with the Exemption as without. FEIS at 3-55." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system. The agency must reconcile the proposal with that analysis and explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies adding to that backlog. The legal and administrative burden rationale fares no better on the record. The rule as written already contains flexibility: 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)." Additional exceptions address existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection. The agency has not identified which specific burdens fall outside what these exceptions already accommodate, nor has it quantified them. It should do so before proceeding. Finally, the regulatory flexibility certification cannot stand. 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 analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the 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, and it concedes some of those firms may lose these receipts entirely. Averaging impact across a national pool to avoid a finding of significance for the businesses that will actually bear the loss is not a defensible methodology. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a proper analysis focused on the small entities operating under permits in the roadless areas at issue. Sincerely, Daniel Shapiro Los Angeles, CA