Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609348

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts its own DEIS findings on wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, fails to reconcile the regulatory flexibility certification with documented economic losses to specific small entities, and ignores solicited reliance interests, specifically regarding the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Hoover Wilderness 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

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
- “where I hike, recreate, and photograph nature”
- “untouched landscapes are the product being sold”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “I have built my recreation around these roadless areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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”
- “Opening roads into these places does not reduce ignitions”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The state-by-state approach this proposal revives has already failed in court”
- “The Ninth Circuit found it wanting”
- “The regulatory flexibility certification in this proposal cannot be squared with the numbers beside it”
- “Under the legal standards that govern agency change of course, reliance interests created by a prior rule must be identified and weighed”
Wildlife Habitat
- “its own ecology, its own water, its own wildlife”
- “including Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat”
- “photograph nature, wildlife, rivers, and untouched landscapes”
- “ecologically connected across state lines”

What it names

Roadless areas: Lakes BasinLog Cabin SaddlebagMono Craters

Attachments

5 files. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter
Own letter
Supporting material
Supporting material
Supporting material

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Humboldt-Toiyabe and Hoover Wilderness areas are where I go to be a good steward of something precious. The Virginia Lakes area, Saddlebag Lake, the Twenty Lakes Basin, the Mono Craters, and the many other roadless areas that stem off Highway 395 are where I hike, recreate, and photograph nature, wildlife, rivers, and untouched landscapes. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of that at risk, and I am filing this comment in opposition to Docket FS-2025-0001. The agency's own record on wildfire should stop this proposal cold. The DEIS 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 now justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds, claiming that road access will help control fire. Its own words say the opposite. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The forests I use, the Inyo and the Humboldt-Toiyabe, hold enormous portions of that landscape, including the Mono Craters at 7,115 acres and the Log Cabin Saddlebag area at 15,165 acres. Opening roads into these places does not reduce ignitions; the agency's own DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data its own record contains. The state-by-state approach this proposal revives has already failed in court. The record itself 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." That was the rationale the last time the agency tried to replace a national rule with local decision-making, and the Ninth Circuit found it wanting. The Humboldt-Toiyabe alone holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, each one a sky island rising from the Great Basin desert with its own ecology, its own water, its own wildlife, including Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat. Piecemeal state processes cannot protect values that are national in scale and ecologically connected across state lines. How does this proposal avoid the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit already identified, and what specific mechanism prevents incremental local decisions from eroding roadless values that the national rule was designed to hold intact? The regulatory flexibility certification in this proposal cannot be squared with the numbers beside it. 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. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The outfitters and guides who operate permits in places like the areas I photograph, where untouched landscapes are the product being sold, stand to lose real receipts, and the certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining those actually holding permits in the affected areas. The agency must withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating inside the potentially affected roadless areas. This administration invited reliance interests when it solicited "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. This comment is one such interest. I have built my recreation around these roadless areas. I photograph wildlife and untouched landscapes precisely because the rule has kept them that way. Under the legal standards that govern agency change of course, reliance interests created by a prior rule must be identified and weighed, not solicited and then set aside. The agency must account for the interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it can lawfully proceed. I ask that the agency deny the rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in force. Sincerely, Erin Morris Carlsbad, California