Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-319588

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record a specific challenge to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, documenting that the agency's own DEIS data (Table 21) and cost-benefit analysis contradict the proposed justification by showing higher fire risks on roaded lands and an inability to confirm net economic benefits, while citing Tenth and Ninth Circuit precedents to argue that the proposal repeats legally deficient approaches and exceeds statutory authority.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “hiking to escape the rat race”
- “solitude and natural beauty remain findable”
- “kayak the lakes in the area”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire justification for this rescission does not hold up”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “ignition data showing far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient”
- “Tenth Circuit addressed it directly and held”
- “rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “legal problems the Ninth Circuit found the last time this path was tried”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “agency cannot establish a net benefit from its own numbers”

What it names

National Forests: Olympic National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

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 Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges are where I go hiking to escape the rat race, and the roadless areas within them are the reason solitude and natural beauty remain findable there. I kayak the lakes in the area for the same reason. These are public lands, and I believe they should be managed to protect and preserve nature for generations to come. The current proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule moves in precisely the opposite direction, and I oppose it. The wildfire justification for this rescission does not hold up against the agency's own findings. The 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 Olympic National Forest and the Cascade ranges I hike are not abstract acreage to me. Opening them to roads, under the banner of fire management, contradicts what the agency's own data show about ignition risk. I ask that the agency explain, drawing on its own DEIS Table 21, why the proposal departs from these prior findings on fire occurrence, and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data showing far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is equally thin. The agency's own record acknowledges that "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 cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from its own numbers, yet it proposes to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile those figures on the record and explain how an action whose own analysis cannot confirm a net benefit serves the public interest. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's prior position is part of the record here. When the agency previously moved away from the national rule toward a state-by-state approach, the Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient. The agency's own prior rulemaking record reflects its expressed dissatisfaction with the national rule's approach, but dissatisfaction is not a legal basis for a replacement that repeats the same deficiencies a reviewing court already identified. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the legal problems the Ninth Circuit found the last time this path was tried. Finally, the proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. That question has been litigated. The Tenth Circuit addressed it directly and held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 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 court found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and held that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state the specific legal basis on which it now takes a contrary position, and that explanation must appear in the record before any final action is taken. The lakes I paddle and the ridgelines I walk across the Cascades and the Olympic range carry value that cannot be rebuilt once roads go in. Rescinding this rule trades a permanent, nationally significant resource for economic returns the agency's own numbers cannot confirm. I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal. Sincerely, Nature Lover Kirkland, WA