Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579818

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

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts its own prior findings on fire risk (citing DEIS Table 21), presents an economic analysis that fails to confirm net benefit due to a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, ignores the Tenth Circuit's validation of the rule's statutory authority, and fails to identify specific administrative burdens outside existing regulatory exceptions, specifically regarding Horse Mesa on the Tonto National Forest.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “community wildfire protection are addressed within the rule's structure”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Hunting has meant nature preservation to me”
- “Wild horses draw me into the backcountry”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “process of discovery, and the land that makes it possible”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit reviewed that question and its holding speaks for itself”
- “found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “held that it did not create de facto wilderness”
- “state on what basis, if any, it maintains a contrary legal position”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road system the agency proposes to expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “action whose own analysis cannot confirm a positive return”

What it names

National Forests: Tonto National Forest
Roadless areas: Horse Mesa
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 Hunting has meant nature preservation to me for nearly all my life, as much as we can achieve it. Wild horses draw me into the backcountry too: we hike to explore on foot in a responsible way, seeking them out and watching them in their natural habitat. I have fished for years. These pursuits share a single condition: country that roads have not fragmented. I am still learning Horse Mesa on the Tonto National Forest in Arizona, still exploring its 9,146 acres, and that fact alone says something worth preserving. The rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule proposed in Docket FS-2025-0001 would put that process of discovery, and the land that makes it possible, at genuine risk. I oppose the rescission and ask the agency to answer the specific questions below. Arizona holds 78 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,174,256 acres. The agency's stated justification for opening those areas to roads includes wildfire and fuels management, but the agency's own record undermines that case. The 2001 rulemaking found that "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 animals I have hunted nearly all my life, and the wild horses I travel to watch, depend on country that stays intact. If roading that country raises fire risk by the agency's own measure, the justification collapses inward. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the agency's own draft environmental impact statement reports as showing far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is no stronger. The agency's record states that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against that marginal production, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. The road system the agency proposes to expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I ask that the agency reconcile those numbers publicly and explain how an action whose own analysis cannot confirm a positive return justifies adding to infrastructure the agency already cannot maintain. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit reviewed that question and its holding speaks for itself: "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." That court found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and held that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must address that holding directly and state on what basis, if any, it maintains a contrary legal position. Finally, the rule as written already contains the flexibility the agency says it lacks. The agency's own characterization of the rule notes that "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)." Existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection are addressed within the rule's structure. The agency has not identified which specific permitting or administrative burdens fall outside those exceptions. It should do so, with specificity and quantification, before any rescission proceeds. Across the Southwestern region, 739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The stakes of this decision extend well beyond any single parcel. Horse Mesa is a place I am still learning. I intend to keep exploring it, responsibly, and I expect the agency to give these questions a substantive answer. Sincerely, Louis Chavez Gilbert, Arizona