Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-340434

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 9, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data regarding fire ignition densities (22.4 vs 3.0 per million acres) and municipal water intake exposure, identifies deficiencies in the agency's regulatory flexibility analysis and failure to weigh reliance interests, and requests specific quantification of fire risks and withdrawal of the small entity certification.

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.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “The Tuolumne River area drains into one of California's most important watersheds”
- “Opening roadless land to road construction threatens that hydrology directly”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “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”
- “quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions that would follow from new road access”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “organized recreation, conservation work and community planning around the protections this rule provides”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The regulatory flexibility analysis also fails”
- “The agency invited reliance interests and then ignored them”
- “The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments”

What it names

National Forests: Los Padres National Forest Stanislaus National Forest
Roadless areas: Black ButteSanta CruzTuolumne River

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 Tuolumne River roadless area and the Black Butte roadless area are places I care about. One sits in the Stanislaus NF in California, covering 17,217 acres. The other sits in the Los Padres NF, covering 5,116 acres. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put both at risk. I oppose this proposal. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. That is an enormous legacy, and it rests on the protection this rule has provided. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The Tuolumne River area drains into one of California's most important watersheds. Opening roadless land to road construction threatens that hydrology directly. The agency has not shown how it accounts for that exposure, and I want a clear answer on that point in the record. The agency justifies part of this rescission on wildfire and fuels management grounds. But its own prior findings cut hard against that rationale. The agency's 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." That is the agency's own language. I want the agency to explain, directly and specifically, why this proposal departs from those findings and how the rescission can be squared with them. The fire data in the agency's draft environmental impact statement makes the problem sharper. The DEIS states that "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 contrast between 22.4 and 3.0 is not subtle. The Tuolumne River area and the Black Butte area are both in fire-prone California landscapes. I want the agency to quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions that would follow from new road access and weigh that number explicitly against whatever wildfire hazard reduction the proposal claims to deliver. The regulatory flexibility analysis also fails. 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 analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than looking at the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. That is not a real assessment. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and analyze the impact on the specific small businesses operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average. Finally, the agency invited reliance interests and then ignored 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 interest in these areas, and the interests of others who have organized recreation, conservation work and community planning around the protections this rule provides, are exactly the kind of settled expectations that must be weighed when an agency changes course. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Ava Donovan Santa Cruz, CA