Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603217

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 8/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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, 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.
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.
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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “procedural record behind that rule”
- “asymmetry alone deserves acknowledgment”
- “not a coherent procedure”
- “agency must do that, and must do it in the record”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States”
- “quantify the projected change in carbon storage”
- “sequestration under the alternatives”
- “Stating a number and drawing a conclusion without connecting them is not analysis”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “economic treatment of recreation and small business”
- “certifies no significant impact on small entities”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “Spreading a concentrated loss across a national average firm obscures”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators”
- “firms may lose the receipts that sustain them”
- “small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas”

What it names

Law cited: 66 FR 3244

The comment

The natural beauty of this country should not only be celebrated. It should be honored, and it should be protected. These places are a gift, and they are our responsibility. On that understanding, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The procedural record behind that rule is itself a statement about how seriously the public takes these lands. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and received 1.6 million comments to write it. It has held none to undo it. That asymmetry alone deserves acknowledgment, and the substantive problems in the proposal compound it. The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830). This asks the public to comment on something the agency has already declined to analyze. Plan amendments are a foreseeable and stated consequence of rescission. They are not hypothetical. Treating them as outside the scope of this action while simultaneously soliciting comment on them is not a coherent procedure. I ask that the agency analyze the foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including expanded timber harvest area, as part of this action, and explain in the record why it was originally excluded. The carbon question receives the same incomplete treatment. The DEIS cites the estimate that these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons. That figure is presented and then set aside. The DEIS concludes that these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, but it offers no analysis of what happens to storage and sequestration under the alternatives that permit harvest and road construction. Stating a number and drawing a conclusion without connecting them is not analysis. I ask that the agency quantify the projected change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative before finalizing this action. On the core legal question, The proposal asserts that local land management planning now adequately protects roadless values; in adopting the 2001 rule (66 FR 3244) the agency found the opposite, that local planning had allowed those values to be reduced piece by piece and that their national significance required a national rule. An agency is entitled to change its position. It is not entitled to reverse a factual finding without explaining what changed and why the prior evidence no longer holds. Nothing in the proposal identifies the evidence supporting the reversal or engages with the agency's own prior finding. The agency must do that, and must do it in the record. Finally, the economic treatment of recreation and small business is internally contradictory. 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 certification reaches its conclusion by distributing loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, not by examining the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the areas at issue. Some of those firms may lose the receipts that sustain them entirely. Spreading a concentrated loss across a national average firm obscures rather than analyzes the impact. The certification should be withdrawn and replaced with an assessment of the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. These places are a gift and they are our responsibility. The children who will inherit them deserve a decision built on complete analysis, honest accounting of what is being given up, and a procedural record proportionate to what is at stake. This proposal does not yet meet that standard.