Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-573497

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's record fails to quantify residual administrative burdens outside existing exceptions, improperly averages small business impacts nationally rather than locally, ignores solicited reliance interests in the Cost Benefit Analysis, and contradicts its own fire data regarding ignition densities in roadless versus roaded areas.

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
- “agency owes a coherent legal and factual record”
- “does not satisfy the Regulatory Flexibility Act”
- “assess the reliance interests its prior policy created”
- “name each claimed burden, explain why the rule's existing exceptions do not resolve it”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “fire data contradicts the wildfire rationale for rescission”
- “human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land”
- “road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires”
- “projected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “where I hike in the wild”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits”
- “keep the Clarion River, Minister Valley, and Tracy Ridge units in a condition that makes them worth going to”
Water Quality Quantity
- “286 municipal water intakes sitting in watersheds that contain affected roadless areas”
- “people drinking that water”
- “honestly accounts for what rescission costs”

What it names

National Forests: Allegheny National Forest
Roadless areas: Clarion RiverMinister ValleyTracy Ridge
Law cited: 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 areas with roads are not wilderness. That distinction is what I am asking this agency to defend before it eliminates the protection that makes it meaningful. Pennsylvania holds 7 inventoried roadless areas totaling 24,866 acres. The Clarion River, Minister Valley, and Tracy Ridge units in the Allegheny National Forest are among them, and they are where I hike in the wild. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would expose those 24,866 acres to road construction and the industrial access roads bring with them. Before that happens, the agency owes a coherent legal and factual record. What follows identifies where that record falls short. The agency justifies rescission in part on permitting and administrative burden, yet its own rule text already provides for the situations it cites as problems. The rule as written "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)." Exceptions for existing mineral leases, community wildfire protection, and public health and safety are already in the rule. The agency has not identified which specific burdens fall outside those existing exceptions or placed any quantification of the residual burden on the record. I ask the agency to do exactly that: name each claimed burden, explain why the rule's existing exceptions do not resolve it, and support that explanation with figures. The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-significant-impact certification by averaging the projected expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The agency's own cost-benefit work undercuts that move. "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." A certification resting on a national average, while the agency's own analysis identifies a specific affected class and a floor on lost receipts, does not satisfy the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The agency should withdraw the certification and produce an analysis limited to the firms actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. The agency has also invited reliance comments it has not committed to weigh. "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 letter is one such reliance interest. I hike in the wild because areas with roads are not wilderness, and I rely on the 2001 rule to keep the Clarion River, Minister Valley, and Tracy Ridge units in a condition that makes them worth going to. An agency changing course is required to assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. The Cost Benefit Analysis as it stands does not do that. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final action. Finally, the agency's own fire data contradicts the wildfire rationale for rescission. "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." The effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. The agency cannot simultaneously cite fire risk as a reason to open these areas to roads and decline to quantify what new roads will do to ignition rates. What is the projected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access in the affected areas, and how does that figure weigh against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard? The record does not say. The Eastern region, which includes Pennsylvania, has 286 municipal water intakes sitting in watersheds that contain affected roadless areas. The people drinking that water, and the people hiking in the wild because roaded land is something else entirely, are owed a record that honestly accounts for what rescission costs. This one does not yet do that.