Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601854

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule fails to reconcile its own data on sediment pollution and wildfire ignition rates with the proposed action, lacks a valid legal basis for replacing the national rule with state-specific approaches, and contains a flawed regulatory flexibility analysis that ignores specific economic impacts on small entities in affected areas.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “286 municipal water intakes in the Eastern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Untouched wilderness has a vital role in our water cycle, helping to replenish and clean our water supplies”
- “Creation of roads can generate sediment pollution that affects water sources throughout the country”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “Leaving these areas as true wilderness is the only way to preserve them for future generations”
- “Fewer and fewer truly wild places remain on Earth”
- “preserve them for future generations, including my children”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands”
- “The DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “the agency's own ignition data does not counsel against the rescission rather than for it”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in that state-by-state substitution the last time it was tried”
- “The rule as written already accommodates the situations the proposal cites as burdens”
- “The regulatory flexibility certification claiming no significant impact on small entities does not hold together”

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 gapRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The mountain wilderness of Vermont is what I photograph. Leaving these areas as true wilderness is the only way to preserve them for future generations, including my children, and the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would move directly against that purpose. Vermont holds 25,096 acres across 6 inventoried roadless areas, and 286 municipal water intakes in the Eastern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. I am filing this comment in opposition to Docket FS-2025-0001. Water is becoming an ever more important resource. Untouched wilderness has a vital role in our water cycle, helping to replenish and clean our water supplies. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Creation of roads can generate sediment pollution that affects water sources throughout the country, and those 286 municipal intakes in my region represent real drinking water for real communities. I ask the agency to explain, specifically and on the record, how opening roadless watersheds to road construction is compatible with its own sediment data, and to address what mitigation measures, if any, would protect those intakes once the national rule no longer applies. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as justification for rescission, but the agency's own prior findings cut the other way. The agency 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 DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must reconcile that finding with the wildfire rationale offered here, and must explain why its own ignition data does not counsel against the rescission rather than for it. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency has attempted this before, and the record of that attempt is not favorable. The agency previously acknowledged that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in that state-by-state substitution the last time it was tried. Fewer and fewer truly wild places remain on Earth, and a patchwork of state petitions is not an equivalent substitute for a standing national protection. I ask the agency to explain how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies identified in that prior litigation and to address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. The rule as written already accommodates the situations the proposal cites as burdens. 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)." Before rescinding the entire national rule, the agency should identify which specific administrative or permitting burdens fall outside those existing exceptions, including those covering existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection, and it should quantify those burdens in concrete terms. A general claim of administrative friction is not a sufficient basis for eliminating protections that the Forest Service reached only after holding more than 600 public meetings and receiving 1.6 million comments, while this rescission has proceeded without a single equivalent public process. Finally, the regulatory flexibility certification claiming no significant impact on small entities does not hold together. The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year, and the DEIS identifies outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected parties. Spreading an estimated $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, does not constitute a meaningful analysis. The agency should withdraw that certification and assess the actual impact on the small entities operating in these specific roadless areas. That assessment is owed to those businesses and to the public before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Daniel Rosenberger Jersey City, New Jersey