Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-432514

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from the agency's own EIS and cost-benefit analysis demonstrating that roaded lands have higher fire density and that the proposal's economic benefits do not outweigh recreation losses, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent to challenge the legal authority for rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “shelters over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats”
- “federally endangered species”
- “habitat fragmentation that follows”
- “Indiana bats, northern long-eared bats, Kentucky arrow darters, and blackside dace depend on these same lands”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protects headwater streams feeding the Red River”
- “Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River”
- “Brush Creek ran through my earliest memories”
- “grew up on that water”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road system this proposal would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “agency cannot establish a net benefit from its own numbers”

What it names

National Forests: Daniel Boone National Forest
Roadless areas: Wolfpen
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Brush Creek ran through my earliest memories. I practically grew up on that water in southern Ohio, and the forests I keep returning to, Shawnee State Forest, Wayne National Forest, and Daniel Boone National Forest, matter to me dearly. My view of public land management is simple and firm: the health of the ecosystem and the health of our people are inextricably linked. The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule does not reflect that understanding, and I oppose it. Daniel Boone National Forest contains Kentucky's entire roadless inventory. The Wolfpen roadless area, at 2,835 acres, is the single inventoried roadless area in the state, and it protects headwater streams feeding the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The forest also shelters over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats in the deep sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. Indiana bats, northern long-eared bats, Kentucky arrow darters, and blackside dace depend on these same lands. Rescinding the national rule would leave this entire inventory, every acre of it, exposed to road construction and the habitat fragmentation that follows. I ask the agency to explain specifically how the proposal protects these species and this singular Kentucky roadless inventory when the rule that currently protects them is gone. On wildfire, the agency's 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 proposal nonetheless justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from this prior finding and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is similarly weak. The agency's own record concedes that "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." The agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system this proposal would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from its own numbers. It should say on the record how this action is justified in light of that gap. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's own record acknowledges that the USDA "discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." That experiment was already tried. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's state-by-state replacement and found it wanting. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies and address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. Finally, on statutory authority: the courts that reviewed whether the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's power concluded otherwise. The Tenth Circuit held, in language that speaks for itself: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." That court further found the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state clearly what legal basis supports a contrary position now. These forests and that water shaped how I understand the connection between healthy land and healthy people. The record before this agency does not support rescission, and I urge the agency to withdraw the proposal. Sincerely, Jonathan Hunter Reese Manchester, Ohio