Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-280686

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted August 28, 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 prior findings on wildfire risk and economic cost-benefit analysis, specifically regarding the 68,987 acres of inventoried roadless areas in Wisconsin, and requests an explanation of how the proposal reconciles these internal inconsistencies and legal precedents.

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
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “fire risk the agency's own data tied to road presence”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”
- “Ninth Circuit found the state-by-state replacement deficient”
- “statutory authority”
Water Quality Quantity
- “watersheds feeding the lakes and streams I paddle”
- “286 municipal water intakes across the Eastern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “quiet lakes and streams”

What it names

National Forests: Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The North Country Trail through the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is where I hike and camp. I paddle the quiet lakes and streams of that same forest. The roadless areas inside it, including Wheeler Lake Islands, Foursection, Chase Creek, and Thornapple, are the places I am writing about. Wisconsin holds 16 inventoried roadless areas totaling 68,987 acres. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that the agency answer the following points in this proceeding. The agency's own 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." The proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet that justification runs directly against the agency's own prior findings. The lakes and streams I paddle, and the trails I walk through Chase Creek and Thornapple, sit inside areas whose fire risk the agency's own data tied to road presence, not to the absence of roads. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence inside roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency's record also states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The economic case for opening Foursection, Chase Creek, Thornapple, and the other Wisconsin roadless areas to road construction therefore rests on an extraction base the agency itself describes as marginal at the national scale. The agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify adding to that backlog in forests that already provide the paddling and hiking I depend on? The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's own record reflects that the agency "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 preference for local decision-making was tested before. The agency's own prior finding acknowledged that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and the Ninth Circuit found the state-by-state replacement deficient. I ask that the agency explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies, and address its own record finding that piecemeal, area-by-area decisions are precisely the mechanism by which nationally significant roadless values are lost. On the question of statutory authority, the agency's record includes the following holding from the Tenth Circuit: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we REVERSE the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded that authority. The agency must state plainly, on the record, the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding and explain what has changed in the statutory framework that would support a different conclusion now. The 68,987 acres of inventoried roadless land in Wisconsin, and the watersheds feeding the lakes and streams I paddle, 286 municipal water intakes across the Eastern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, deserve answers to each of these points before any final decision is made. Sincerely, Warren Enstrom Milwaukee, WI