Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-598728

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents a specific deficiency in the agency's analysis regarding the contradiction between the small-business certification and the DEIS's own cost-benefit data, the failure to assess reliance interests despite soliciting them, and the inconsistency between the agency's fire data (showing higher ignition density on roaded land) and the proposal's wildfire hazard claims, while requesting site-specific environmental analysis for Alexander Springs Creek in Ocala 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

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
- “favorite memories are from hikes and camping trips”
- “ensures their enjoyment by all who want to visit them”
- “small outfitters and guides who work this same country”
- “bond with my family”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land”
- “human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads”
- “road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires”
- “quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “small-business certification contradicts the analysis”
- “Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests”
- “ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences”
- “provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record”
Water Quality Quantity
- “impacts to nearby watersheds”
- “snorkling in springs”
- “Alexander Springs Creek”

What it names

National Forests: Ocala National Forest
Roadless areas: Alexander Springs Creek

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 I have lived all over the US and some of my favorite memories are from hikes and camping trips through national parks. While in Oregon, I experienced my first snowy cabin trip in Mt. Hood. In Northern California, I visited Tahoe and Mt. Shasta and finally understood the appeal of camping while sitting by many campfires with friends. When I visit my family in Florida, I look forward to snorkling in springs and hiking nearby trails. Through these trips, I was able to forget about the things in daily life that brought me stress and just focus on being present in nature with people I cared about. I want others to share the experiences I’ve been fortunate enough to have. Our public lands are some of our greatest resources and I believe they should be managed in a way that ensures their enjoyment by all who want to visit them. Since they are essential to combating climate change and maintaining healthy ecosystems, we are only hurting ourselves by not treating them as a vital resource that needs to be protected. As a taxpayer, I also care about the responsible management of funds meant to benefit the public. Before expanding into creating new roads, USDA's Forest Service, should address its current backlog of road maintenance. This backlog does not inspire confidence in the Forest Service's ability to manage future complications that may arise from development, such as impacts to nearby watersheds. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about Alexander Springs Creek (2,954 acres), Ocala National Forest, Florida, a place that has allowed me to bond with my family. I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it I hike and camp in these areas, and the small outfitters and guides who work this same country help people like me get out there. They deserve a real assessment. 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 supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and concedes some firms may lose these receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Issue 2: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I plan trips into these areas year after year, counting on the protection that keeps them what they are. That reliance is exactly what the agency asked commenters to describe. 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. Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Issue 3: The agency's own fire data cuts against the proposal I hike and camp in this country, and fire shapes every trip I plan. If the agency's own data ties ignitions to road access, I want that weighed honestly. 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. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Clara Herrera Washington, DC