Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-225261

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted August 20, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is unsupported by the Department's own cost-benefit analysis, internally inconsistent regarding wildfire risk, legally vulnerable due to the replacement of a national standard with discretionary local plans, and procedurally deficient regarding incomplete tribal consultation under E.O. 13175.

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, Evidence, 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

Economic Impact Fiscal
- “additional economic effects of rescission "could exceed $100 million" annually”
- “projected benefits are substantially smaller and less certain”
- “$6.1 million annual loss to recreation-dependent businesses”
- “costs an order of magnitude larger than its most optimistic quantified benefits”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale is internally inconsistent”
- “greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential”
- “human-caused ignitions correlate with road density and access”
- “2001 Rule already contains exceptions permitting fuel-reduction and forest-health activities”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition”
- “without adequate government-to-government consultation”
- “fulfillment of its trust responsibilities”
- “complete the consultation process and incorporate its results”
Governance Policy Process
- “land management planning process is not a demonstrated substitute for a national standard”
- “durability of roadless-area protection would vary by forest unit”
- “replacing a litigated national standard with 100+ discretionary, revisable local plans”
- “undermining the Department's stated goal of reducing administrative burden”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR Part 294 575 F.3d 999 E.O. 13175 Executive Order 12866

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapLegal

I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B). My objections are based on the economic, procedural, and legal record contained within the proposed rule and its supporting materials, which I believe undermine rather than support the case for rescission. A. The Department's own cost-benefit data do not support the proposed action The Department states that the additional economic effects of rescission "could exceed $100 million" annually, while its own projected benefits are substantially smaller and less certain. The proposal estimates $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in incremental Treasury and Forest Service revenue, and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry, contingent on assumptions the Department itself calls unlikely to hold given "budgets, unforeseen limits on operability, and market conditions." Set against this, the Department projects a $6.1 million annual loss to recreation-dependent businesses alone, without a comparable dollar estimate for effects on commercial fishing, drinking water systems, or long-term ecosystem services. A rule expected to impose costs an order of magnitude larger than its most optimistic quantified benefits does not meet the standard of reasoned rulemaking required under Executive Order 12866, which the Department itself invokes as governing this action. I request that the final rule not proceed until the Department reconciles this asymmetry or provides a benefit estimate that can plausibly offset the projected costs. B. The wildfire rationale is internally inconsistent The proposal cites wildfire risk reduction as a central justification for rescission, yet the Department's own summary of impacts acknowledges that "greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential in some locations." Independent research on fire ignition sources has consistently found that human-caused ignitions correlate with road density and access, which is consistent with the Department's own admission here. Additionally, the 2001 Rule already contains exceptions permitting fuel-reduction and forest-health activities without new road construction; the proposal does not explain why those existing exceptions are insufficient, nor does it quantify how much of the wildfire benefit claimed for rescission could be achieved without full repeal. I request that the Department provide an analysis isolating the wildfire-risk benefit attributable specifically to new road construction and timber harvest, as distinct from the benefit already available under the current rule's exception process. C. The land management planning process is not a demonstrated substitute for a national standard The proposal asserts that local land management plans can achieve "similar conservation objectives" to the 2001 Rule, but the rule text itself confirms this outcome is discretionary rather than assured: individual plans "could still include restrictions," and rescission "does not... compel" any particular plan outcome. This means the durability of roadless-area protection would vary by forest unit and could shift with each plan revision, creating exactly the kind of inconsistency and litigation risk that motivated the original 2001 national rule. Given that the 2001 Rule was itself the product of extensive litigation — including a Ninth Circuit affirmation in *California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA*, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009) — replacing a litigated national standard with 100+ discretionary, revisable local plans is likely to generate a comparable or greater volume of legal challenges, undermining the Department's stated goal of reducing administrative burden. D. Tribal consultation findings documented in the proposal itself raise unresolved E.O. 13175 concerns The Department's own Tribal Input Received section states that the "majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission," citing concerns that the Department has proceeded "without adequate government-to-government consultation" in fulfillment of its trust responsibilities. The Department separately determined that this rulemaking "would have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes" sufficient to trigger E.O. 13175 consultation obligations. Given that only 29 of 64 requested consultations had been completed as of publication, I request that the Department complete the consultation process and incorporate its results into the rule before finalizing any decision, consistent with the Department's own determination that consultation is required here. I urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rescission, or at minimum to address the analytical gaps identified above before proceeding to a final rule. Respectfully submitted.