Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606590

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding the impact of rescission on federally listed species in the Red River Gorge, water quality in the Pacific Northwest, wildfire ignition risks, and economic cost-benefit calculations, while citing specific agency records and legal holdings to demand reconciliation of these contradictions.

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.
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

Wildlife Habitat
- “shelter over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats”
- “Indiana bat, Kentucky arrow darter, blackside dace, and northern long-eared bat also depend on that forest”
- “threatens extinction”
- “continued existence of species that will otherwise go extinct”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protects headwater streams feeding the Red River”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “repealing this rule will contaminate water supplies”
- “sediment-free streams supply drinking water to communities”
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”
- “increase the roaded footprint of the national forests is an appropriate wildfire response”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit evaluated that precise experiment and found it wanting”
- “legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”
- “statutory authority”

What it names

National Forests: Daniel Boone National Forest Hoosier National Forest
Roadless areas: Mogan Ridge
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Having lived in places that will be directly affected by rescission of the Roadless Rule, including Washington and North Carolina, and hope to visit more soon, I am filing this comment against Docket FS-2025-0001 because what is at stake is not a policy abstraction. It is land that has stood for thousands of years and should not be carved up by an administration against the wishes of its citizens. Indiana has so few uninterrupted areas of public land that include Mogan Ridge, at 8,435 acres in the Hoosier National Forest, carries an outsized weight. We should be doing everything we can to preserve what already exists, not breaking it up further for industry or potential data centers. The Wolfpen area in Daniel Boone National Forest is Kentucky's entire roadless inventory, all 2,835 acres of it, and it protects headwater streams feeding the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge shelter over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. Indiana bat, Kentucky arrow darter, blackside dace, and northern long-eared bat also depend on that forest. These are not species that can simply relocate. Rescission does not threaten inconvenience; it threatens extinction, and I want the agency to explain in its final record what specific analysis it performed for each of these listed species before concluding that loss of roadless protections would not accelerate their decline. Washington alone holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean water is essential for the everyday health and well-being of Americans, and repealing this rule will contaminate water supplies. The agency knows this. Its own analysis establishes that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. I ask the agency to explain, in response to this comment, how it squares that finding with a proposal to remove protections from the very unroaded lands whose sediment-free streams supply drinking water to communities across the country. The proposal invokes wildfire management as a rationale, but the agency's own record 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." The agency must reconcile this rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS and explain why a proposal that will increase the roaded footprint of the national forests is an appropriate wildfire response. On the economics, the agency's own record concedes: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." I ask the agency to reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and to explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace one national rule, but the agency's own record acknowledges 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 evaluated that precise experiment and found it wanting. The agency should address how this attempt avoids the same deficiencies. Finally, on the question of statutory authority, the record contains this holding from a court that reviewed it: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The lands should be preserved for future generations to maintain environmental stability and the continued existence of species that will otherwise go extinct, not sacrificed for short-term profit. The agency must state plainly and on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. Sincerely, A concerned citizen