Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-484376

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 25, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the DEIS's conclusion that new roads have no material effect on wildfire ignition rates is unsupported by its own data, specifically citing Table 18 and Table 21 to show a 7.5x higher human-caused ignition density on non-IRA lands, and identifies a gap where the DEIS relies on unquantified access restrictions that the proposed rule rescission would remove.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “biodiversity of this area is rare to find these days”
- “maintain full protection of the little forest we have left”
- “integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless area”
Water Quality Quantity
- “rely on these watersheds for clean water”
- “logging will also compromise”
- “flooding, which we now know we can be devastated by”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “increased risk of wildfire, which logging contributes to”
- “new road construction will have no material effect on wildfire ignition rates”
- “human caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “avid user of this wilderness”
- “want my child to have access to nature”
- “access to nature”

What it names

Roadless areas: Craggy Mountain
Works cited: Balch et al. 2017Cardille et al. 2001Chen and Jin 2022Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012Parisien et al. 2016

The comment

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

I am writing in strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user of this wilderness and an advocate for our nation's public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless area here like Craggy Mountain, like Linville Gorge near my home. I want my child to have access to nature, and after the devastation of Helene here in Asheville, the last thing anyone needs is an increased risk of wildfire, which logging contributes to, along with landslides and flooding, which we now know we can be devastated by after the last hurricane in the area. The biodiversity of this area is rare to find these days and we rely on these watersheds for clean water, something logging will also compromise. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protection of the little forest we have left in this country, especially in this area that I covet and love so dearly. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment, Sincerely, Emily Snow, North Carolina native and mother to five year old child Unsupported and Uncited Conclusion That New Roads Have No Material Effect on IRA Wildfire Ignition Rates The DEIS's conclusion that new road construction will have no material effect on wildfire ignition rates in inventoried roadless areas is stated without support and contradicts the DEIS's own cited findings and its own data. The DEIS establishes the mechanism itself. At p. 98 it states that "human caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads, supporting the notion that roads facilitate human access, which can in turn result in more human caused fires," citing Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012, Parisien et al. 2016, Balch et al. 2017, and Chen and Jin 2022. At p. 109 it states that "[r]oad density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions (Cardille et al. 2001)." Every one of these sources is in the DEIS's own bibliography. The DEIS also quantifies the differential, and the relevant figure is not the one most often quoted. Table 18 (p. 95) reports all-cause ignition density of 42 fires per million acres per year on other NFS lands against 12 in potentially affected IRAs. Table 21 (p. 98) decomposes that figure by cause: human-caused ignition density is 22.4 against 3.0 — a factor of 7.5 — while the natural-ignition rates are far closer at 16.8 against 8.5. The differential the DEIS attributes to roads is therefore the human-caused component, and it is more than twice the size the all-cause comparison suggests. Notwithstanding these findings, the DEIS concludes at p. 113 that "the net impact of new roads on fire occurrence is likely small or insignificant, given the potential for improved response times and increased initial attack success." No source is cited for that conclusion, and no estimate of the ignition increase appears anywhere in the effects analysis for either action alternative. Its two supporting assumptions are unquantified and uncommitted. At p. 109 the DEIS reasons that "not all roads constructed under alternative 2 would be open for public access. Therefore, increased human ignitions do not necessarily follow from increased road construction." At p. 113 it states that "public access to roads constructed or improved under alternatives 2 and 3 can be limited to minimize fire hazard in high-risk areas." Neither alternative commits to any level of access restriction, no proportion of closed roads is estimated, no basis is given for expecting any particular proportion, and the rescission itself transfers that decision to local responsible officials. The analysis thus supplies the mitigating assumption while the rule removes the national requirement that would deliver it.