Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-559590

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's justification for rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own DEIS findings on wildfire ignition rates, contradicted by prior Tenth Circuit legal holdings regarding statutory authority, and unsupported by a valid small business impact assessment that ignores specific local economic data.

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, 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “tranquility and peace... would be absolutely destroyed”
- “hiking, camping and paddling there for years”
- “destroy it for residents, for tourism”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale... is contradicted by the agency's own findings”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “agency argues that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority”
- “Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “rule itself already contains exceptions”
- “small-business certification... does not hold up”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “water, air and soil pollution that follows is irreversible”
- “destroy it for... the ecosystem around it”
- “mineral extraction do to a place: they destroy it”

What it names

National Forests: Huron-Manistee National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The tranquility and peace of the Huron-Manistee National Forest would be absolutely destroyed by trucks, roads, tree clearing and other obstructions, and the water, air and soil pollution that follows is irreversible in many situations. My family has been hiking, camping and paddling there for years, and we look forward to sharing it with our children as they grow. Up near Marquette we ride and immerse ourselves in nature, and we know what logging roads and mineral extraction do to a place: they destroy it for residents, for tourism, for the ecosystem around it. I oppose this rescission and I want the agency to answer the questions below in the record it compiles. The wildfire rationale the agency offers for rescission is contradicted by the agency's own findings. The 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 nevertheless justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and that it 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 agency argues that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. That argument has been litigated. A federal appellate court ruled: "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." The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 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 explain, on the record, the basis for any contrary position, and it must address that holding directly rather than simply reasserting the ultra vires theory as settled. The rule itself already contains exceptions for the activities the agency says it cannot pursue under the rule. The agency's own analysis confirms: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The proposal justifies rescission on permitting and administrative burden grounds, but it never identifies which specific burdens are not already addressed by those exceptions, including those covering existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection. The agency should quantify those burdens in the record and identify, permit by permit if necessary, what it cannot do today that rescission would allow. Finally, the small-business certification the agency filed does not hold up. 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 places I am talking about, the Huron-Manistee and the forests near Marquette, support exactly these kinds of small operators: guides, outfitters, the tourism economy that depends on land that has not been roaded and cleared. Spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than looking at the operators actually holding permits in the affected areas, does not satisfy the intent of the regulatory flexibility requirements. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a genuine assessment of the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. This land matters to my family and to the communities around it. The agency has not answered the questions its own record raises. I ask that it do so. Sincerely, Alex Hageman Oxford, MI