Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-349182

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's justification for rescinding the Roadless Rule is contradicted by its own data on fire ignition risks and economic impacts, specifically highlighting that the small-business certification is internally inconsistent and that the proposal fails to account for documented reliance interests in the Gila National Forest.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “Mexican gray wolf is making its last stand”
- “Gila trout, the Mexican spotted owl, the Gila woodpecker, javelina”
- “species that depend on what the roadless rule has held in place”
Water Quality Quantity
- “headwaters of the Gila River”
- “last major free-flowing river in New Mexico”
- “739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “roadless areas of the Gila are not made safer by roads”
- “opening these landscapes to new roads reduces rather than multiplies ignition risk”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “$6.9 billion maintenance backlog already burdening the existing road system”

What it names

National Forests: Gila National Forest
Roadless areas: Gila BoxMeadow Creek

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 Gila was the first designated wilderness in the world, Aldo Leopold's idea made real in 1924, and four of the inventoried roadless areas I am writing about sit in its shadow: Meadow Creek, 34,167 acres; the area contiguous to the Black and Aldo Leopold Wilderness, 111,883 acres; Gila Box, 23,759 acres; and the area contiguous to the Gila Wilderness and Primitive Area, 79,049 acres, all within the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. These lands are not abstractions to me. They are where the Mexican gray wolf is making its last stand in the United States, where fewer than 250 wolves survive in the wild, and where every road into their territory is a threat multiplier. They are the headwaters of the Gila River, the last major free-flowing river in New Mexico. Gila trout, the Mexican spotted owl, the Gila woodpecker, javelina: these are the species that depend on what the roadless rule has held in place. I rely on the rule continuing to hold it. The agency justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own 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." The roadless areas of the Gila are not made safer by roads; the agency's own prior findings say the opposite. The agency must explain, with specific reference to the ignition data in DEIS Table 21 reporting far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, why the proposal departs from those findings and how opening these landscapes to new roads reduces rather than multiplies ignition risk. The economic rationale is no stronger. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against that marginal supply number, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service and recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. A range that wide cannot establish a net benefit. And this is before accounting for the $6.9 billion maintenance backlog already burdening the existing road system. New Mexico holds 120 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,505,508 acres, and across the Southwestern region 739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency must reconcile the proposal with these numbers and explain how expanding a road network already carrying that backlog serves the public interest when its own analysis cannot demonstrate that it does. The small-business certification is internally contradicted. The agency states: "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 an annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the potentially affected roadless areas, and it concedes that some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. That is not a regulatory flexibility analysis; it is an averaging exercise that obscures the actual exposure of the actual businesses. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an assessment focused on the small entities operating in the affected areas. Finally, the agency invites reliance interests and then ignores 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 one such interest. I have structured my relationship to these places, to the Mexican gray wolf habitat in the Gila roadless lands, to the free-flowing river those lands protect, under the reasonable expectation that the rule would continue to do what it has done since 2001. An agency that changes course must account for the reliance its prior policy created. The agency should identify and give genuine weight to the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Dave Baker Silver City, New Mexico