Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601313

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's draft environmental impact statement and cost-benefit analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition risks and small entity impacts, and asserts a specific reliance interest based on the stability of the Roadless Rule for recreational use.

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
- “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”
- “Opening roadless areas to road construction does not reduce fire risk by the agency's own prior findings”
- “It increases the likelihood of human-caused ignitions”
Wildlife Habitat
- “The wildlife filling them is irreplaceable”
- “stable protection for the lands and wildlife I go there to find”
- “The wildlife in these areas is irreplaceable”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hike and camp in U.S. parks and forests specifically to take time with the beauty these areas have to offer”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The regulatory flexibility analysis accompanying this proposal reaches a conclusion that the record cannot support”
- “The agency must identify, precisely and with supporting data, which claimed burdens the rule's current exceptions do not already resolve”
- “An agency that changes course is required to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created”

What it names

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 forests and parks of this country are worth defending. I hike and camp in U.S. parks and forests specifically to take time with the beauty these areas have to offer. The wildlife filling them is irreplaceable. This letter opposes the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale it offers for rescission. The draft environmental impact statement 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." Opening roadless areas to road construction does not reduce fire risk by the agency's own prior findings. It increases the likelihood of human-caused ignitions. The DEIS Table 21 data, by the agency's own account, shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain in this proceeding why the proposal departs from these findings and how it reconciles the rescission with that ignition data. The agency also says the rule imposes permitting and administrative burdens that justify eliminating it. But the rule already accommodates a range of management needs. As the agency's own materials describe, 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 exceptions also address mineral leases and community wildfire protection. The agency has not identified which specific burdens fall outside these provisions. It has not quantified those burdens anywhere in the record. The agency must identify, precisely and with supporting data, which claimed burdens the rule's current exceptions do not already resolve. The regulatory flexibility analysis accompanying this proposal reaches a conclusion that the record cannot support. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities, yet, as the agency's own materials state, "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." That certification rests on spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the relevant sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The analysis concedes some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. Averaging across a national population of firms that have no stake in these specific areas produces a number that obscures real harm to real permit holders. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an analysis focused on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not a national average that dilutes and hides their exposure. Finally, the agency solicits comment on reliance interests. The proposed rule asks for "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" at 91 FR 53830-31, and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. I hike and camp in these forests in part because the Roadless Rule has provided a stable protection for the lands and wildlife I go there to find. The wildlife in these areas is irreplaceable, as I stated. That is a reliance interest. The rule has been in place long enough that people like me have organized our expectations around it. An agency that changes course is required to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created, not simply solicit them and then ignore them in the analysis. This comment constitutes such an interest. The agency must identify and genuinely weigh the reliance interests expressed in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Kristen N Allegheny County, PA