Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606726

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's wildfire rationale conflicts with its own DEIS data (Table 21), that the proposed state-by-state approach repeats previously rejected legal deficiencies, that the regulatory flexibility certification ignores concentrated economic impacts on small entities, and that the agency failed to assess reliance interests as required by Encino Motorcars and Regents.

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.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale for rescission conflicts directly with its own prior findings”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Opening roadless areas to road construction does not reduce fire risk”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “state-petition framework that the Ninth Circuit subsequently found deficient”
- “agency has not explained how this proposal avoids the legal shortcomings”
- “regulatory flexibility certification accompanying this proposal is not credible”
- “agency changing course must grapple with the reliance interests its prior policy created”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “Averaging away a concentrated impact on identifiable small businesses is not a meaningful flexibility analysis”
- “some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “work I did a few years ago as a research assistant at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory”
- “inspire the scientists, writers, and thinkers who will carry that understanding forward”
- “The DEIS itself reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “My own professional development, shaped by work inside landscapes”

What it names

Roadless areas: Rocky Mountain

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The work I did a few years ago as a research assistant at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory brought me into direct contact with the wild landscapes that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects. These places matter not only for their natural beauty but because they inspire the scientists, writers, and thinkers who will carry that understanding forward. The proposed rescission threatens something I watched generate that kind of meaning firsthand, and I oppose it without reservation. The agency's wildfire rationale for rescission conflicts directly with its own prior findings. The 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." Opening roadless areas to road construction does not reduce fire risk by the agency's own accounting. The DEIS itself reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask the agency to explain, on the record, why the proposal departs from these prior findings and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21. The state-by-state approach the agency now proposes has been tried before and was rejected. The record reflects 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." That same dissatisfaction led to a state-petition framework that the Ninth Circuit subsequently found deficient. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids the legal shortcomings identified the last time it tried to substitute local decision-making for a national rule, nor has it addressed its own prior finding that incremental local decisions can erode nationally significant roadless values. How does the agency intend to address those prior deficiencies here? The regulatory flexibility certification accompanying this proposal is not credible on its face. 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. That conclusion is reached by spreading the projected annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the potentially affected roadless areas. The supporting analysis itself concedes that some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. Averaging away a concentrated impact on identifiable small businesses is not a meaningful flexibility analysis. The agency must withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the entities actually operating in these areas. Finally, the agency invited comment on reliance interests and then declined to assess them. The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under the standards the Supreme Court articulated in Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must grapple with the reliance interests its prior policy created. My own professional development, shaped by work inside landscapes that exist as they do precisely because of twenty-four years of roadless protection, is one such interest. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests described in every comment it receives, including this one, before it takes any further action on this rescission. Sincerely, Caleb Boxwell Syracuse, NY