Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-434556

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 16, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's draft environmental impact statement contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition rates and fire density, that the existing rule already permits the hazardous fuel reduction measures cited as justification for rescission, that the regulatory flexibility analysis improperly averages national data rather than assessing local small entities, and that the agency failed to weigh the reliance interests it solicited, specifically documenting the commenter's reliance on the rule for predictable access to Bunker Creek and Hancock.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “The agency frames this proposal in part as a wildfire management measure, but its own draft environmental impact statement undermines that framing”
- “The DEIS also reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “The rule already permits the hazardous fuel work the agency says justifies rescission”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “The streams I walk in Bunker Creek clean water for surrounding populations”
- “A road there, as the agency's own water intake data suggests, would put that function at risk”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “My husband, two college friends, and I have hiked through beautiful rock formations in the roadless areas of Utah for many years”
- “The DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “My group has returned to these areas across many trips precisely because the rule's protections made that future predictable”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency's regulatory flexibility analysis does not hold together”
- “The agency must withdraw the small-entity certification and assess the impact on the operators actually working in these areas”
- “Under controlling precedent, an agency reversing course must genuinely assess the reliance its prior policy created”

What it names

Roadless areas: Bunker Creek
Works cited: Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012

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 My husband, two college friends, and I have hiked through beautiful rock formations in the roadless areas of Utah for many years, camping for several nights on each trip, looking for bobcats, falcons, and hawks in the underbrush and high in the sky, and photographing formations that remind me how the earth was formed and of the many people who lived in these areas before Western people arrived. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would end that. This comment opposes the rescission and raises specific failures in the agency's supporting record. The agency frames this proposal in part as a wildfire management measure, but its own draft environmental impact statement undermines that framing. The DEIS states: "While roads allow more agile positioning of firefighting assets, they are also the site of high rates of human-caused ignition (Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012), which account for 84% of US wildfires (Balch et al 2017)." The DEIS also reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. When I walk Bunker Creek and move through its wetlands, examine its beaver dams, and look up at mature groves of quaking aspen, I am in a landscape that the agency's own data shows is less fire-prone than the roaded alternative would be. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from these findings and reconcile the rescission with its own ignition and fire-density data. The rule already permits the hazardous fuel work the agency says justifies rescission. The DEIS states: "The rule recognizes the need for tree cutting to reduce the risk of wildfire to at-risk communities. It allows tree cutting in non-upper tier within 0.5 miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, or up to 1.5 miles if certain conditions exist and the area is within a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). A temporary road may be constructed to facilitate hazardous fuel reduction within 0.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community." At the high elevation of Hancock, where I have watched big mammals traverse open land, the habitat the rule currently protects would be fragmented by roads the rule already makes unnecessary for the stated purpose. The agency must identify on the record which specific burdens are not already addressed by these existing exceptions, and quantify them. The agency's regulatory flexibility analysis does not hold together. The DEIS 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." That conclusion is reached by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas. Utah alone holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The streams I walk in Bunker Creek clean water for surrounding populations. A road there, as the agency's own water intake data suggests, would put that function at risk, affecting the communities and businesses that depend on it. The agency must withdraw the small-entity certification and assess the impact on the operators actually working in these areas, not an averaged national figure. Finally, the agency has invited reliance interests and done nothing with them. The DEIS states: "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 another reliance interest. My group has returned to these areas across many trips precisely because the rule's protections made that future predictable. Under controlling precedent, an agency reversing course must genuinely assess the reliance its prior policy created. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests submitted in this comment period, including this one. I ask that the agency address each of these points in the final record before proceeding further with this proposal. Sincerely, Alison Estabrook, MD North Salem, New York