Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-253440

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 7/24Owed an answerPosted August 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B) is legally and ecologically deficient because it replaces a durable national standard with discretionary local plans, ignores substantial Tribal opposition and documented economic costs, and fails to consider narrower alternatives for wildfire mitigation.

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 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.
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.
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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “last large, unfragmented forest landscapes”
- “providing habitat for sensitive and at-risk species”
- “fragments habitat and increases sediment and pollutant loads”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “Tribal opposition to this rescission has been substantial”
- “threat to Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival”
- “inadequate government-to-government consultation”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protecting sources of public drinking water”
- “increases sediment and pollutant loads into watersheds”
- “downstream communities depend on”
Governance Policy Process
- “patchwork of local land management plans”
- “susceptible to political and budgetary pressure”
- “narrower, more targeted exceptions to the existing rule”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR Part 294 575 F.3d 999

The comment

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

To the Director, I am writing to formally oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B), as published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2026 (91 FR 53827; RIN 0596-AD66). The 2001 Roadless Rule has protected 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System for a quarter century. It has survived extensive litigation, including affirmation by the Ninth Circuit in California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, precisely because it reflects a durable, congressionally supported judgment that these lands merit protection from road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting. Rescinding it now would eliminate that protection nationwide, replacing a single enforceable standard with a patchwork of local land management plans that can be amended or revised at the discretion of individual forest supervisors and regional foresters. I object to this proposal for the following reasons: Rescission removes a durable, national-level safeguard in favor of local discretion that can shift over time. The proposed rule acknowledges that governing land management plans "could still include restrictions" on road building and timber harvest in roadless areas, but that is not the same as a guarantee. Local plans are more susceptible to political and budgetary pressure, and can be amended without the level of national scrutiny the 2001 Rule provided. A protection that depends entirely on discretionary, unit-by-unit decisions is not a comparable substitute. The proposal's own analysis acknowledges significant costs. According to the Department's own cost-benefit estimates, the rule could result in over $100 million in additional annual economic effects, including an estimated $6.1 million in annual losses to recreation-based economic benefit, alongside temporary and long-term impacts to quiet, remote, and self-reliant recreation opportunities that roadless areas currently provide. Tribal opposition to this rescission has been substantial and should weigh heavily in the Department's decision. The Department's own supplementary information states that the majority of Tribal governments consulted oppose the rescission, viewing it as a threat to Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival, and the ecological health of ancestral homelands, and have raised concerns about inadequate government-to-government consultation. I urge USDA to give this opposition serious weight rather than proceeding on the current timeline. Roadless areas provide ecological value that a rescission puts at risk. These lands serve as some of the last large, unfragmented forest landscapes in the country, providing habitat for sensitive and at-risk species, protecting sources of public drinking water, and serving as carbon sinks. Increased road construction and vegetation management in these areas, even where localized, fragments habitat and increases sediment and pollutant loads into watersheds that both wildlife and downstream communities depend on. The stated rationale — reducing wildfire risk and regulatory burden — does not require wholesale rescission. If the Department's concern is genuinely about targeted fuel treatment near communities and the wildland-urban interface, that goal can be pursued through narrower, more targeted exceptions to the existing rule rather than eliminating national-level protection for all 58.5 million acres. A blanket rescission is a far broader remedy than the problem identified. For these reasons, I urge USDA to withdraw this proposed rule and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its current form. At minimum, I urge the Department to complete meaningful, comprehensive Tribal consultation before proceeding further, and to consider narrower alternatives — such as a Strengthened Roadless Rule Alternative incorporating Tribal co-stewardship, as raised during consultation — rather than a full national rescission. Thank you for considering this comment as part of the public record for this rulemaking. Sincerely, Nathan Page Morro Bay, CA