Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-328251

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with its own findings on wildfire ignition rates and administrative burdens, fails to properly assess economic impacts on local small entities, and neglects to weigh the reliance interests it explicitly solicited.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “verified species there include black bear, hellbender, brook trout, Indiana bat, Virginia spiraea, and the northern long-eared bat”
- “More tree species grow in these small roadless pockets than in all of northern Europe”
- “protect the last wild headwaters of rivers that flow to both the Atlantic and the Gulf, along with salamander species found nowhere else on Earth”
Water Quality Quantity
- “378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “those intakes depend on the watershed integrity that road-free headwaters provide”
- “protect the last wild headwaters of rivers”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency must explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings”
- “The agency has not identified which specific burdens fall outside those exceptions, nor has it quantified them”
- “The agency must weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm nationally”
- “conceding that some firms may lose those receipts”

What it names

National Forests: Cherokee National Forest Nantahala National Forest
Roadless areas: Brushy RidgeCheoah BaldDeep Creek / Avery Creek AdditionJoyce Kilmer Slickrock Add.
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

I am a concerned American citizen and taxpayer. Please reconsider this rule. The roadless areas I am asking this agency to protect are real places I know: the Joyce Kilmer Slickrock Add. in Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee; Brushy Ridge, also in the Cherokee; and Yellowhammer Branch Add., Deep Creek / Avery Creek Addition, Snowbird, and Cheoah Bald in Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina. These are the areas at stake for me, and I am writing because the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would expose them to road construction and extractive development that the rule has held back for more than two decades. The southern Appalachians are an evolutionary crossroads. The Cherokee National Forest holds 18 inventoried roadless areas totaling 84,881 acres, and verified species there include black bear, hellbender, brook trout, Indiana bat, Virginia spiraea, and the northern long-eared bat. More tree species grow in these small roadless pockets than in all of northern Europe. The Nantahala National Forest holds 14 inventoried roadless areas totaling 52,304 acres, and its verified species include black bear, hellbender, brook trout, cerulean warbler, more than 30 endemic salamander species, and the northern long-eared bat. Snowbird, Cheoah Bald, and the other Nantahala roadless areas protect the last wild headwaters of rivers that flow to both the Atlantic and the Gulf, along with salamander species found nowhere else on Earth. These are not abstract ecological facts. They describe the condition of the land I am asking the agency to keep intact. The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. That justification cannot be squared with the agency's own findings. The record 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." Tennessee alone sits within a Southern region where 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and those intakes depend on the watershed integrity that road-free headwaters provide. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and it must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency also claims the rule imposes undue administrative and permitting burden. The rule's own text answers that claim: "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)." Exceptions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already written into the rule. The agency has not identified which specific burdens fall outside those exceptions, nor has it quantified them. I ask that it do so, with specificity, for each burden it claims the exceptions fail to address. The regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant economic impact on small entities. That certification conflicts with the analysis surrounding it. The proposal's own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year, and the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties. The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm nationally rather than assessing the guides and outfitters who actually hold permits in the affected areas, while conceding that some firms may lose those receipts. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a proper assessment focused on the small entities operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not a national average firm whose relationship to Snowbird or Cheoah Bald is zero. 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. This comment is itself a reliance interest. My connection to the Nantahala and Cherokee roadless areas, and my expectation that the 2001 rule would continue to protect them, is exactly the kind of interest the agency is legally required to identify and assess before changing course. The agency must weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, and it must do so in a manner that appears in the final record, not merely in a solicitation that generates no response. Future generations deserve to live in a beautiful place. Please consider them, Lyndsey Lee Knoxville, Tennessee