Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-382921

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fails to account for specific watershed values in Flathead National Forest, contradicts prior appellate holdings on statutory authority, and improperly certifies no significant impact on small entities by obscuring concentrated economic harm to local outfitters and guides, while failing to weigh reliance interests in the cost-benefit analysis.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

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.
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.
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.
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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “pristine beauty, quiet, and solitude”
- “photograph beautiful scenes of snow and trees”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “argument collides directly with a federal appellate court's conclusion”
- “agency owes the public an explanation... of why it believes it may depart from that holding”
- “certification method that obscures that concentration of harm cannot satisfy the regulatory flexibility statute”
- “agency reversing course must actually assess the reliance interests”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,287 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Rescinding the rule puts all of that at risk, including the clean water those communities rely on”
- “how the rescission accounts for these watershed values”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “undisturbed ecosystem”
- “heard the sounds of wildlife calling to each other”
- “watched pelicans and swans on the water and nuthatches in the tall trees”
- “protection the 2001 rule currently provides”

What it names

National Forests: Flathead National Forest

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The pristine beauty, quiet, and solitude of Flathead National Forest are what draw me there, and I am writing to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule because that rescission would put both at risk. The agency's proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the Forest Service's statutory authority. That argument collides directly with a federal appellate court's conclusion: "We conclude that the Forest Service acted within the authority that Congress granted to it under the Organic Act and MUSYA." The agency owes the public an explanation, on the record, of why it believes it may depart from that holding and what legal basis supports a contrary position. I have visited Standard Peak, an 8,262-acre inventoried roadless area in Flathead National Forest in Montana, and Deadhorse Ridge, a 23,648-acre inventoried roadless area in the same forest. At Standard Peak I saw spectacular, breathtaking views of an undisturbed ecosystem and felt as though I was surrounded by God's country. At Deadhorse Ridge I saw unique views I had never seen before and heard the sounds of wildlife calling to each other across rugged, beautifully colored ridges. I go to Flathead National Forest to photograph beautiful scenes of snow and trees. I have watched pelicans and swans on the water and nuthatches in the tall trees, and I went hoping to see a bald eagle. These experiences depend on the protection the 2001 rule currently provides. Montana holds 235 inventoried roadless areas totaling 6,395,392 acres, and across the Northern Region, which includes Montana, 1,287 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Rescinding the rule puts all of that at risk, including the clean water those communities rely on. I ask that the agency explain, with specificity, how the rescission accounts for these watershed values and the protection they provide to downstream communities. The proposal also justifies rescission on grounds of permitting and administrative burden. The agency's own prior analysis addressed these concerns directly, finding that mineral leasing activities not dependent on road construction, as well as activities that could be carried out through utilization of existing roads, would not be prohibited by the rule at all. The rule also contains existing exceptions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection. The agency has not identified which specific burdens, if any, fall outside those exceptions. I ask that the agency itemize the claimed burdens the existing exceptions do not already address and quantify them with supporting data before proceeding. 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. That certification is reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The analysis concedes some of those firms may lose these receipts entirely. A certification method that obscures that concentration of harm cannot satisfy the regulatory flexibility statute. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the real impact on the businesses operating in these specific roadless areas. Finally, 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. I have planned my visits to Standard Peak and Deadhorse Ridge around the continued protection the 2001 rule provides. That is a reliance interest. Under controlling administrative law doctrine, an agency reversing course must actually assess the reliance interests its prior rule created, not simply invite comments about them and then ignore them in the cost-benefit accounting. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the record before it, including this comment. Sincerely, Daryl Gale Los Angeles, CA