Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-327931

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record a specific contradiction between the agency's justification for rescission based on fuels management and its own DEIS data showing higher fire density on roaded lands, while citing specific economic figures and legal precedents to challenge the net benefit and statutory authority of the proposed rule.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “watching deer, marmots, woodpeckers, eagles, hawks, and the occasional black bear”
- “protect the little wildlife we have remaining”
- “put at risk the inventoried roadless areas I care about most”
- “protecting these lands and the wildlife that depend on them”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “My strongest concern is wildfire”
- “putting more roads, vehicles, and people into these forests will make that worse”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile its ignition data in DEIS Table 21 with the decision to open these areas to roads”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The economics do not support this rescission either”
- “timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million per year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million per year”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road maintenance backlog already carrying a $6.9 billion deficit”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “state-specific approach was reviewed and rejected in federal court”
- “Tenth Circuit already addressed the statutory authority question”
- “holding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “how this rescission avoids the same legal deficiencies the courts previously identified”

What it names

Roadless areas: Boulder RiverMt. Baker West
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Mount Baker forest area in the North Cascades is one of the most special and beautiful places I know. I have spent years backpacking and camping there, watching deer, marmots, woodpeckers, eagles, hawks, and the occasional black bear. There are so few of these animals left in this world, and I cannot understand why we cannot learn to protect the little wildlife we have remaining. I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001), which would put at risk the inventoried roadless areas I care about most, including the 56,039-acre Mt. Baker Noisy-Diobsud, the 32,563-acre Boulder River, the 25,390-acre Mt. Baker West, and the many other roadless areas across Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington that together form the wild country I return to again and again. My strongest concern is wildfire, because the agency's own record is unambiguous and the rescission ignores it. I have watched wildfire become a more serious issue with every passing season, and I know that putting more roads, vehicles, and people into these forests will make that worse. The agency's own analysis 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." When the proposal justifies rescission on fuels management grounds while the agency's own draft environmental impact statement reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside roadless areas, that is a contradiction that demands a straight answer. I ask the agency to explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings and to reconcile its ignition data in DEIS Table 21 with the decision to open these areas to roads. The economics do not support this rescission either. The agency's own record 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." Against those marginal extraction figures, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million per year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million per year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. Washington alone holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and 1,522 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Northwest sit in watersheds containing roadless areas affected by this rule. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from this action while also defending a road maintenance backlog already carrying a $6.9 billion deficit. I expect the agency to reconcile these numbers publicly. The agency has also argued that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but the record reflects the agency's own prior acknowledgment that the previous administration "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 state-specific approach was reviewed and rejected in federal court. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit already addressed the statutory authority question the agency now raises, holding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness: "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 agency owes a clear explanation of how this rescission avoids the same legal deficiencies the courts previously identified, and a direct statement of whatever basis it claims for a contrary reading of agency authority. We should be spending our time, energy, and resources protecting these lands and the wildlife that depend on them. That is what I believe, and that is what the agency's own evidence supports. I ask that each of the specific concerns raised in this comment receive a substantive written response in the final record. Sincerely, Sandra Towne Freeland, Washington