Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-518159

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 30, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Draft EIS's finding that road proximity increases wildfire frequency is unsupported because the cited tables measure land designation rather than road distance and the only road-distance analysis (Figure 15) lacks necessary data documentation, thereby failing to provide a reasoned explanation for a reasonably foreseeable effect.

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(iii)”
- “5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A)”
- “Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002)”
- “factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v)”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “Road-Proximity Ignition Finding Rests on a Designation-Level Analysis”
- “The analysis the Draft EIS presents does not support that finding at the magnitude asserted”
- “report the data underlying Figure 15”
- “not a cause-effect relationship established within the meaning of 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(23)”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “We are losing roadless areas all across the country”
- “Once they are penetrated by roads and vehicle, they are changed for all future generations”
- “Protect what's left. Keep the Rule.”

What it names

Law cited: 284 F.3d 1062 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706 7 CFR 1b 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(23)
Works cited: Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

We are losing roadless areas all across the country. Once they are penetrated by roads and vehicle, they are changed for all future generations. This must stop now. Road-Proximity Ignition Finding Rests on a Designation-Level Analysis and an Undisclosed Figure 15 At Draft EIS page 98, in the Wildfire Occurrence discussion, the agency states: "Consistent with other research findings, these analyses indicate 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 (Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012, Parisien et al., 2016, Balch et al., 2017, Chen and Jin, 2022)." The Comparison of Alternatives table in Chapter 2 carries that finding into the effects comparison, stating that under alternatives 2 and 3, "if there is an increase in public road access, there could be increase the number and frequency of wildfires as human-ignitions are more likely near roads." The Draft EIS therefore treats an increase in the number and frequency of wildfires arising from road proximity as a reasonably foreseeable effect of the proposed action. The analysis the Draft EIS presents does not support that finding at the magnitude asserted, for two reasons established by the document's own text. First, the two analyses the Draft EIS documents measure land designation, not road distance. Table 18 (p. 95) and Table 21 (p. 98) both compare other NFS lands, potentially affected IRAs, and wilderness, using Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Module (InFORM) Fire Occurrence Data Record ignitions with a point of origin on NFS lands for 2014-2024. A contrast among land designations cannot isolate a road-proximity effect, and the Draft EIS concedes the confounding on the same page. It states that "Other NFS lands typically have more land management activities, infrastructure (such as powerlines), and public recreation that can lead to human caused ignitions," and it reports that other NFS lands have "about twice the density of natural ignitions than IRAs or wilderness, potentially due to biophysical differences or higher detection rates" (p. 98). Natural ignitions are not caused by road access. The agency's own explanation for the natural-ignition differential - biophysical difference and detection rate - applies with equal force to the human-ignition differential in Table 21, and the Draft EIS neither tests nor excludes it before attributing that differential to roads. Second, the only analysis in the Draft EIS that measures ignitions against road distance is Figure 15, "Density of reported ignitions by distance to roads and cause within the potentially affected IRAs" (p. 98). Unlike the captions of Tables 18 and 21, the Figure 15 caption identifies no data source and no period, and the figure carries none of the documentation supplied for those tables in footnotes 38 through 40 at page 94. The narrative does not reference Figure 15 or report any value from it - no distance classes, no ignition counts by cause, no exposed area, no densities. The one within-IRA road-distance analysis in the document is presented with none of the information a reader would need to evaluate it, while the two designation-level analyses that cannot answer the road-distance question are fully documented. I request that the Forest Service supplement the wildfire occurrence analysis (7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(iii)) to report the data underlying Figure 15 - the distance classes, ignition counts by cause, exposed area, and resulting ignition densities - and to state whether the road-distance relationship within the potentially affected IRAs survives the confounders the Draft EIS itself identifies at page 98. If it does not, the finding at page 98 and the Fire and Fuels row of the Comparison of Alternatives require factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v). Absent one or the other, the Final EIS would assert a reasonably foreseeable effect for which it has disclosed no supporting analysis: not a cause-effect relationship established within the meaning of 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(23), and not a reasoned explanation under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A). See Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002). Forum. This concern is directed to both the Draft EIS and the proposed rule. The road-proximity ignition finding supplies a factual predicate for the wildfire rationale stated in the Purpose and Need, and the Purpose and Need is the standard against which alternatives were measured for elimination from detailed study. An answer given only in the Final EIS response-to-comments appendix would leave the concern unanswered as a comment on the rule. Protect what's left. Keep the Rule.