Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601091

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's environmental review for the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is legally deficient because it improperly discarded protective alternatives based on deregulatory goals, relied on a wildfire rationale that contradicts its own data and legal basis, and failed to disclose exception usage records, thereby violating NEPA and the APA.

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “environmental review supporting it is legally and analytically deficient”
- “NEPA does not permit an agency to write its purpose as deregulation”
- “None of this satisfies the agency's obligations under NEPA or the Administrative Procedure Act”
- “Rescinding it without a lawful, complete environmental review is not a legitimate path forward”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “I want this pristine nature to remain as is”
- “Alternatives with more protection were dismissed”
- “The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has provided the framework for doing exactly that”
- “eliminating protections across the entire inventoried roadless system”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “The wildfire rationale the agency has used in public discussion does not hold up”
- “benefits of added fuel-management access 'would likely be modest and localized'”
- “WUI-targeted alternative that would have addressed fire concerns”
- “Nationwide rescission is a far broader instrument than the fire problem”

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The public lands belong to all of us, and I want this pristine nature to remain as is. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule moves in exactly the opposite direction, and the environmental review supporting it is legally and analytically deficient in ways the agency must address before proceeding. The most fundamental problem is that the entire analysis was structured to eliminate protective outcomes before they could be considered. Alternatives with more protection were dismissed as not responsive to deregulatory executive orders, and the keep-boundaries option was cut because it "would continue to restrict local decision-making discretion" and because analysing roadless values is "an administrative and legal burden for the agency." NEPA does not permit an agency to write its purpose as deregulation and then discard alternatives because they protect too much. The comparison NEPA requires cannot happen when the thumb is on the scale from the first sentence. I ask that the agency restate the purpose and need in terms of actual forest conditions and analyze at least one fully protective alternative on its merits. The wildfire rationale the agency has used in public discussion does not hold up against the agency's own numbers, and it is not even the stated legal basis for the action. The purpose and need is to reduce regulatory burden and return decisionmaking to local officials. Overlap with the wildland-urban interface as defined by HFRA is 9.8 million acres, 24 percent of the affected area, and the DEIS says the benefits of added fuel-management access "would likely be modest and localized." The agency itself constructed a WUI-targeted alternative that would have addressed fire concerns without eliminating protections across the entire inventoried roadless system, and then rejected it. Nationwide rescission is a far broader instrument than the fire problem, even as the agency describes it, could justify. Why was the WUI-targeted alternative the agency built discarded in favor of eliminating the rule entirely? The agency's treatment of the rule's exception provisions compounds these problems. The 2001 rule's exceptions were expected to be infrequent by design; their infrequent use is now offered as evidence of failure, in a document that concedes "the rule's intent for infrequent use." A safety valve that operates as designed is not broken. Citing its own intended operation as a reason to dismantle the underlying rule is circular, and the agency cannot use that reasoning to meet its burden of reasoned decision-making. The agency should publish the counts of exception requests, approvals, denials and processing times so the public and reviewing courts can evaluate whether any genuine operational problem exists. Taken together, these defects describe a process that began with a conclusion and worked backward. The deregulatory purpose foreclosed protective alternatives. The fire rationale is simultaneously overstated and not the legal basis for the action. The exception record that might support a finding of failure has not been disclosed. None of this satisfies the agency's obligations under NEPA or the Administrative Procedure Act, and none of it gives the public a fair opportunity to comment on a record that actually supports the decision being made. I want this pristine nature to remain as is. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has provided the framework for doing exactly that. Rescinding it without a lawful, complete environmental review is not a legitimate path forward. Sincerely, Mike Kennett, PA