Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-252322

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted August 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of 36 C.F.R. part 294, subpart B is legally and factually unsupported because existing regulations and statutes already authorize the necessary wildfire and road actions, the rescission is not scoped to documented risk areas, and the agency failed to provide required data, ESA consultation, and ANILCA section 810 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

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The rule already authorizes the work the notice says it needs”
- “None of it requires rescission”
- “Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), set aside the identical 2005 repeal”
- “Authority over National Forest System lands is delegated by statute”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Section 294.13(b)(1)(ii) authorizes cutting... to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
- “Section 294.12(b)(1) authorizes roads needed against an imminent threat of flood, fire”
- “Acres treated for wildfire risk fell from roughly 4.1 million in FY2024 to roughly 2.6 million in FY2025”
- “Rescission adds no crews and no appropriations”
Governance Policy Process
- “The means are not matched to the stated end”
- “A rescission scoped to documented risk would serve the stated purpose”
- “Explain why that model cannot be extended”
- “Add monitoring, reporting on acres roaded, and a scheduled reassessment”

What it names

Law cited: 16 U.S.C. 3120 16 U.S.C. 531 16 U.S.C. 6512 36 C.F.R. part 294 575 F.3d 999 90 Fed. Reg. 8351 E.O. 14153

The comment

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

I am writing to oppose rescission of 36 C.F.R. part 294, subpart B as proposed. The Department should identify what the rule prevents before removing it. 1. THE RULE ALREADY AUTHORIZES THE WORK THE NOTICE SAYS IT NEEDS The stated need is wildfire, insects, disease, and community protection. Subpart B permits each. Section 294.13(b)(1)(ii) authorizes cutting and removal of generally small diameter timber "to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects" -- the notice's own rationale, already in force. Section 294.12(b)(1) authorizes roads needed against an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event; (b)(2)-(7) cover response actions, reserved rights, realignment, safety, and pre-2001 leases; 294.12(c) permits road maintenance. The rule restricts road construction and timber cutting; it does not restrict fire suppression at all. Congress layered more on top. HFRA, 16 U.S.C. 6512, reaches wildland-urban interface land, municipal watersheds, and land threatened by "an epidemic of disease or insects," and its (d) exclusions do not reach roadless areas. Insect and disease designations under 6591a, with the exclusions at 6591b, 6591d and 6591e, add expedited authority. None of it requires rescission. REQUEST: identify, by unit, year, and acreage, every fuels, insect and disease, or hazard-tree project the Forest Service declined to propose or could not approve solely because of 294.12 or 294.13, and explain why 294.13(b)(1)(ii) was insufficient. The notice has no such list. Without one, the need is unsupported. 2. THE MEANS ARE NOT MATCHED TO THE STATED END The notice reports 9.8 million acres of wildland-urban interface overlap and 18.2 million acres where plans would permit permanent roads. It removes the prohibition across all of it, not the acreage where the stated risk is documented. A rescission scoped to documented risk would serve the stated purpose. This one reaches further. The record also points elsewhere for cause. Acres treated for wildfire risk fell from roughly 4.1 million in FY2024 to roughly 2.6 million in FY2025 -- 35 percent, with the rule unchanged in both years -- amid the loss of roughly 5,000 staff. Rescission adds no crews and no appropriations. If the constraint is workforce, a rule change cannot relieve it. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE NARROWER THAN THE USE MADE OF THEM E.O. 14153 section 3(c), 90 Fed. Reg. 8351, directs the Secretary to address the 2023 Alaska Roadless Rule and reinstate the 2020 Alaska rule. It is Alaska-specific on its face and cannot support a nationwide rescission reaching some 45 million acres -- 58.5 million less the retained Idaho and Colorado rules (9.3M and 4.2M). More fundamentally, each cited order states that it creates no right or benefit enforceable at law and is to be implemented consistent with applicable law. That clause cuts both ways: it defeats a challenge to the orders, and equally defeats any suggestion that the Department was compelled. Authority over National Forest System lands is delegated by statute. An order may direct how the Secretary exercises discretion; it cannot enlarge it or substitute for the findings NFMA and MUSYA require. See also 16 U.S.C. 531(a): multiple use does not mean the combination of uses giving "the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output." 4. THE DEPARTMENT ALREADY BUILT THE ALTERNATIVE Subparts C and D answer the notice's own premise. Idaho's management themes and Colorado's upper-tier structure deliver graduated, place-based flexibility -- community protection zone treatment, temporary road authority -- inside a retained roadless rule. Both have stood since 2008 and 2012, and are being kept. Explain why that model cannot be extended, and why targeted amendments to 294.12 and 294.13, drawn from 294.42-.43, were not analyzed. 5. REQUESTS FOR THE RECORD a. State whether ESA section 7 consultation on this rescission has been initiated, with whom, and when. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), set aside the identical 2005 repeal for failing to consult before effecting it. This notice mentions the Act once, in a savings clause. b. Publish the models behind the harvest, revenue, and recreation figures, or omit them from any final rule; data relied on must be exposed to comment. State the "potentially affected environment" acreage and reconcile it to 58.5M, or another figure as apporpirate. c. Place the ANILCA section 810 evaluation, notice, hearing, and findings inside the EIS, as 16 U.S.C. 3120(b) requires. d. Add monitoring, reporting on acres roaded, and a scheduled reassessment -- rescission is reversible on paper; installed roads are virtually irreversible. Thank you for your service to the People of the United States.