Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-539732

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents the specific ecological and recreational values of North Lake in Inyo National Forest, cites the agency's own record and court rulings to identify gaps in the proposal's legal and economic analysis, and requests that the agency address reliance interests and small entity impacts on the record.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “follow simple trails there to connect to nature”
- “unique photographs that you cannot find elsewhere”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “maintain large areas of undisturbed land”
- “preserve the complex ecosystems that sustain life”
- “biodiversity of plants and the multiple ecosystems upon which we depend are protected”
- “encounter with a beaver family constructing a dam”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency's own record contradicts this directly”
- “explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “The agency must not proceed as though that holding does not exist”
- “The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities”
Water Quality Quantity
- “importance to clean air, clean water”
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “providing ecosystems to sustain all life on this planet”

What it names

National Forests: Inyo National Forest
Roadless areas: North Lake

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The quaking aspens around North Lake in Inyo National Forest are not easy to describe, and my family and I have stood among them knowing that. We follow simple trails there to connect to nature on a basic level, as a reminder of how important it is to maintain large areas of undisturbed land. I will never forget our encounter with a beaver family constructing a dam as the sun set. Losing this area would be devastating not just to the residents near Inyo but to all Americans who look to these wilderness places as a reminder of what the Earth once was and can be with our care. It is because of what North Lake means, and what the landscapes I photograph there which cannot be found elsewhere, that I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. The distinct shapes of these roadless landscapes allow me to create unique photographs that you cannot find elsewhere. When I look back on those photographs, I am reminded of how important it is to preserve the complex ecosystems that sustain life, including ours. Our public lands should be managed to ensure that the biodiversity of plants and the multiple ecosystems upon which we depend are protected. When some of these public lands were created, we did not fully understand their importance to clean air, clean water, and providing ecosystems to sustain all life on this planet. North Lake sits within Inyo National Forest in California, a state that holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. Across the Pacific Southwest region, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The scale of what is at risk here is not local. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's own record contradicts this directly. It states: "The promulgation of the State Petitions Rule had the effect of permanently repealing uniform, nationwide, substantive protections that were afforded to inventoried roadless areas, and replacing them with a regime of the type the agency had rejected as inadequate a few years earlier. Such a substantial regulatory change is neither routine nor merely procedural." This proposal appears to repeat the same substitution the agency itself characterized as inadequate. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. That question has already been answered by a federal court. The record states: "We conclude that the Forest Service acted within the authority that Congress granted to it under the Organic Act and MUSYA." The agency must not proceed as though that holding does not exist. I ask that it explain on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to the Tenth Circuit's conclusion that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness. The regulatory flexibility analysis underlying this proposal certifies no significant impact on small entities. Yet the agency's own record acknowledges what that conclusion conceals: "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." The analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by distributing losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas. The people who run trips into places like North Lake are not a national average. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the agency has invited comment on reliance interests and then declined to weigh them. Its own solicitation acknowledges "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. My family's use of North Lake, my photography of landscapes that cannot be replicated, and my expectation that the 2001 rule would continue protecting these 2,406 acres are exactly the kinds of reliance interests an agency changing course is required to identify and assess. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Gary Gilbert, Los Angeles, CA