Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-326349

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's analysis contains internal inconsistencies regarding small entity impacts and wildfire risk, specifically failing to quantify the increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and failing to assess reliance interests created by the prior rule, while documenting specific ecological and economic values in Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests.

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
- “shelter hellbender, brook trout, cerulean warbler, black bear, more than 30 endemic salamander species, and the northern long-eared bat”
- “Roadless means the forest behind my lens can still be what it is”
- “preserve them in turn for those generations to come”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “drawn by what I can only describe as the ability to "get lost" in nature”
- “looking specifically for sites where no remnants of mankind can be found”
- “businesses built around wild headwaters and trailheads that exist because the land stayed unroaded”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit rejected that rationale”
- “Under established administrative law, an agency changing course must assess the reliance its prior policy created”
- “The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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”
- “Fire risk that tracks road density is a threat to those watersheds, not a reason to add roads”
- “The agency has not quantified what new access would do to that ignition rate”

What it names

National Forests: Pisgah National Forest

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 Pisgah National Forest is one of the places I return to, drawn by what I can only describe as the ability to "get lost" in nature. When I photograph landscapes at Pisgah and other roadless lands, I am looking specifically for sites where no remnants of mankind can be found. No roads, no power lines, no buildings. Pisgah holds 18 inventoried roadless areas totaling 99,369 acres, and those are the places I seek. The Southern Appalachians shelter hellbender, brook trout, cerulean warbler, black bear, more than 30 endemic salamander species, and the northern long-eared bat. Roadless means the forest behind my lens can still be what it is. This proposal would end that, and I oppose it. The agency has been down this road before, and lost. The record reflects that 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 Ninth Circuit rejected that rationale when the agency last used it to substitute state-by-state management for the national rule, finding that patchwork approaches incrementally erode protections that are nationally significant precisely because they are uniform. Nantahala holds 14 inventoried roadless areas totaling 52,304 acres, and Pisgah holds 18 more. No state petition process reaches those headwaters the same way a national rule does. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. The economic analysis is internally inconsistent. 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 guides and outfitters permitted inside areas like Shining Rock and Linville Gorge are not a national average. They are businesses built around wild headwaters and trailheads that exist because the land stayed unroaded. Spreading an aggregate loss across every small firm in the country and declaring no significant impact does not describe what happens to the permit holder whose clientele chose that forest for the same reason I do. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Our public lands need to stay just that, public, not encroached on by industry and the bottom line. The rule has stood long enough that entire livelihoods, recreation patterns, and community economies have been structured around it. The agency knows this because it asked. 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 one such interest. Under established administrative law, an agency changing course must assess the reliance its prior policy created, not simply collect comments describing it and proceed as though they were not filed. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Finally, the agency's own fire data argues against itself. 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 Southern Appalachians feed the last wild headwaters of rivers draining to both the Atlantic and the Gulf. Fire risk that tracks road density is a threat to those watersheds, not a reason to add roads. The agency has not quantified what new access would do to that ignition rate, or weighed that increase against whatever reduction in hazard fuel treatment might achieve. That gap needs to close before any decision issues. These lands were preserved for my generation, and we must preserve them in turn for those generations to come. The agency must answer these questions in the record before it acts. Sincerely, Amy Phemister Indiana