Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-586155

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition data on roaded versus unroaded lands, fails to quantify administrative burdens not addressed by existing 36 C.F.R. § 294.12 exceptions, and issues a flawed regulatory flexibility certification that ignores specific economic losses to small entities in the Mark Twain 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “The roadless areas there are the reason those trails are worth using”
- “I ride and hike in the Mark Twain because its roadless character has been maintained”
- “Recreation in places like the Mark Twain depends on the small operators who run trips there”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for this rescission”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “opening roadless areas to road construction will improve fire outcomes”
- “reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The regulatory flexibility certification in this proposal does not hold together”
- “Exceptions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already part of the structure”
- “An agency that changes course is required to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created”
- “The agency should withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the small entities”

What it names

National Forests: Mark Twain National Forest
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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Mark Twain National Forest is where I ride and hike. The roadless areas there are the reason those trails are worth using. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask that the agency address each of the points below on its own merits. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for this rescission. The DEIS 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." That finding runs directly against the claim that opening roadless areas to road construction will improve fire outcomes in forests like the Mark Twain. The trails I use pass through country that the agency's own data shows is better protected from human-caused ignition precisely because it stays unroaded. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the agency's own record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency has not demonstrated that the rule as written actually prevents the activities the proposal says justify rescission. The rule as described in the agency's own materials "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 public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already part of the structure the agency is proposing to dismantle. I ride in the Mark Twain because its roadless character has been maintained under exactly that framework. The agency has not identified which specific administrative burdens remain unaddressed by those existing provisions. I ask that it do so, and that it quantify those burdens on the record before proceeding. The regulatory flexibility certification in this proposal does not hold together. The agency's own materials state: "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." Spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in affected areas, is not an assessment of impact. It is an avoidance of one. Recreation in places like the Mark Twain depends on the small operators who run trips there, and those operators depend on the roadless character that brings people out. The certification is contradicted by the agency's own cost figures. The agency should withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, this comment is itself the kind of reliance interest the agency invited and then left unweighed. The agency's own 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. I have ridden and hiked in the Mark Twain under the expectation that the protections established in 2001 would remain in place. That expectation shaped where I go and what I rely on finding when I get there. An agency that changes course is required to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created. The agency collected these comments. It must now account for what they say. Sincerely, Judith Davis Poplar Bluff, Missouri