Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603899

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's own DEIS data (Table 21) demonstrates that roaded lands have significantly higher human-caused fire ignition rates than roadless areas, contradicting the proposal's wildfire management rationale, and requests the agency to quantify this increase and explain the departure from prior findings.

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
    • “roadless areas offer the best opportunities for solitude”
    • “necessary decompression from the stresses of modern life”
    • “enjoy finding solitude in nature, and getting away from crowds”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Habitat fragmentation is a significant driver of population declines”
    • “migratory songbirds and other wildlife species”
    • “Intact mature habitat is a conservation use”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “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”

What it names

Roadless areas
Allegheny FrontTracy Ridge

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Local knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I regularly backpack, and roadless areas offer the best opportunities for solitude. It's necessary decompression from the stresses of modern life. The roadless areas in PA (Tracy Ridge, Allegheny Front) and WV (Dolly Sods, Cranberry) are areas I've camped that are closer to home, but I'm always thinking about new places to explore for vacations. Habitat fragmentation is a significant driver of population declines in migratory songbirds and other wildlife species. Once these refugia are impacted by roads and logging, it takes decades to recover. Centuries, if the area contained old growth forest. Such areas are already a small percentage of our total land area; these should be the highest priority areas for conservation. The agency's own fire data should stop this proposal in its tracks. The DEIS states 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 also quantifies this directly: "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 agency cannot claim wildfire management as a rationale for rescission while its own analysis documents that road access raises ignition rates by that margin. I ask the agency to quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it explicitly against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard, and to explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings as reflected in DEIS Table 21. The Forest Service manages for multiple uses, and a large percentage of land is already utilized for timber and supports recreation opportunities accessible by existing roads. Roadless areas support uses that cannot be replicated once these areas are fragmented. Intact mature habitat is a conservation use. It's also a recreation use for those (like me) who enjoy finding solitude in nature, and getting away from crowds. These are just some of the reasons why I strongly opposed the rescission of the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Brian Slaby Maple Heights, Ohio

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless