Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-331100

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed nationwide rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule lacks a region-specific analysis for eastern forests, fails to test the equivalence of planning to the rule, understates impacts by excluding plan amendments, and contains an internally inconsistent small-entity certification, while proposing a targeted amendment to 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1) as an alternative.

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, Alternative, 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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Four defects in the proposal and its supporting analysis”
- “The Department's equivalence premise is testable, and the record does not test it”
- “Reliance interests are unaddressed, the small-entity certification is internally inconsistent”
- “Withdraw the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification”
Governance Policy Process
- “The Department justifies a nationwide rescission with regional conditions it has not shown to exist nationwide”
- “Bounding effects by unamended plans understates reasonably foreseeable effects”
- “Analyze purpose and need separately for eastern inventoried roadless areas”
- “Select the No Action alternative and retain subpart B”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “estimating roughly $6.1 million in annual recreationist losses and impacts that could exceed $100 million”
- “outfitters and guides are predominantly small entities”
- “monetized benefits are dispersed nationally while the costs are concentrated in specific communities”
- “distributional analysis is missing”
Water Quality Quantity
- “water systems drawing from roadless headwaters”
- “downstream watershed users”
- “municipal water supply system”

What it names

National Forests: Allegheny National Forest
Law cited: 36 CFR 294 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)36 CFR part 294

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

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

Comment of Garrett Dodge, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, on the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66, 91 FR 53827). A full comment with supporting citations is attached. This text summarizes it. I am a Pennsylvania resident and a property owner in Caledonia County, Vermont. I oppose the proposed rescission of 36 CFR part 294, subpart B, and urge the Department to select the No Action alternative. In Pennsylvania, the Allegheny National Forest contains approximately 25,000 acres of inventoried roadless area; in Vermont, the Green Mountain National Forest contains approximately 26,000 acres. Four defects in the proposal and its supporting analysis are summarized below. 1. The Department justifies a nationwide rescission with regional conditions it has not shown to exist nationwide. The preamble grounds the need for action in changed conditions "especially in the Western United States" (91 FR 53828), and the Department's August 18, 2026 announcement states that more than 95 percent of inventoried roadless areas lie in ten western states, with high wildfire hazard potential concentrated in the West. The rule nevertheless applies nationwide, removing protection in eastern forests whose fire regimes, forest types, precipitation, and road densities differ materially. The record does not appear to contain a region-specific analysis establishing that the asserted need exists in the eastern National Forest System. 2. The Department's equivalence premise is testable, and the record does not test it. The proposal asserts that land management planning "ensures each land management plan addresses similar conservation objectives as the 2001 Roadless Rule was intended to address" (91 FR 53828). Subpart B covers only areas inventoried as of 2001; roadless acreage identified in later planning inventories is governed by planning alone. Vermont contains substantially more Forest Service-identified roadless acreage than the approximately 26,000 acres subpart B covers. That yields two categories of comparable land in one forest, under one plan, differing only in whether subpart B applies — a direct test of the equivalence premise, which the draft EIS does not appear to present. 3. The impact analysis excludes the mechanism through which impacts would occur. The Department bounds its estimates by existing plan direction, concedes that subsequent plan amendments could expand impacts, places plan changes outside the scope of the rule, and then requests estimates that account for them (91 FR 53830). Because the rule's stated purpose is to restore discretion to forest-level planning, plan amendments are the reasonably foreseeable means by which it operates. Bounding effects by unamended plans understates reasonably foreseeable effects. 4. Reliance interests are unaddressed, the small-entity certification is internally inconsistent, and the distributional analysis is missing. The Department invites comment on reliance interests but does not appear to quantify twenty-five years of reliance by recreation businesses, water systems drawing from roadless headwaters, and adjacent property owners. It certifies no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities while estimating roughly $6.1 million in annual recreationist losses and impacts that could exceed $100 million (91 FR 53830-53831); outfitters and guides are predominantly small entities. Responding to the Department's request regarding distributional effects: the monetized benefits are dispersed nationally while the costs are concentrated in specific communities adjacent to affected areas and among downstream watershed users, so national aggregates do not disclose the actual incidence. Recommendations: (1) Select the No Action alternative and retain subpart B. (2) Analyze purpose and need separately for eastern inventoried roadless areas, and limit any final rule geographically if that analysis does not support rescission in the East. (3) Test the equivalence premise by comparing management outcomes in pre-2001 and post-2001 inventoried roadless acreage in the eastern forests. (4) Analyze a plan-amendment scenario in the final EIS. (5) Withdraw the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification, complete an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and present a regional distributional analysis. (6) If additional flexibility is warranted, amend 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1) by adopting the standard already in force at 36 CFR 294.24(b)(1)(iii) — "To reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire effects to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system" — rather than rescinding the subpart. Rescission is not necessary to achieve the Department's stated purpose. Amendment using language the Department already applies in the Idaho rule it is retaining would achieve it. Thank you for considering these comments.