Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-336452

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted September 8, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS fails to provide quantified, roadless-specific data on forest health impacts and does not perform sensitivity analysis on acreage-derived percentages, rendering the rationale for rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

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
- “recreational time on public land specifically because of the conditions roadless designation maintains”
- “beloved and respected by others who frequent it”
- “Time in the protected forest and proximity to it is one of the reasons I live and enjoy living in the Skagit Valley”
- “devastating for me personally and for my community who love and respect the outdoors”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “New road construction, reconstruction, and associated development fragment habitat, introduce disturbance, and eliminate roadless character”
- “Road construction compacts soil to roughly 200 times the density of undisturbed forest soil”
- “creates disturbance patterns that persist for decades”
- “salmon runs of Alaska, wonderfully intact and protected by the Roadless Rule”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “unsupported factual premises violate APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)”
- “arbitrary and capricious under APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)”
- “an agency that identifies a data-quality problem must grapple with its implications for downstream conclusions”
- “I request quantified, roadless-specific data... before this rationale is relied upon to justify rescission”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “no acreage figures, no roadless-specific fire, insect, or disease incidence statistics”
- “no comparison of forest health outcomes between roaded and roadless lands”
- “0.4-million-acre discrepancy between the 44.7-million-acre IRA figure and the 44.3-million-acre National Forest System land figure”
- “I request that the agency provide sensitivity ranges or error bars for every acreage-derived percentage”

What it names

National Forests: Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
Roadless areas: Mt. Baker West
Law cited: 284 F.3d 1062 463 U.S. 29 537 F.3d 981 537 F.3d 981
Works cited: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x

The comment

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

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz, As someone who has spent a substantial portion of recreational time on public land specifically because of the conditions roadless designation maintains, I am submitting these comments to urge the Department to conduct a more rigorous accounting of public value before rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. While I know the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest best, I have also spent significant time in some of the last wild places on Earth - including the salmon runs of Alaska, wonderfully intact and protected by the Roadless Rule. I continue to explore the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, and find it beloved and respected by others who frequent it. Time in the protected forest and proximity to it is one of the reasons I live and enjoy living in the Skagit Valley. I have made my life and livelihood here, and without it I would no longer feel at home. Regarding the Mt. Baker West in the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington: New road construction, reconstruction, and associated development fragment habitat, introduce disturbance, and eliminate roadless character. Roads alter the physical environment in ways that persist. Road construction compacts soil to roughly 200 times the density of undisturbed forest soil, alters at least eight major physical characteristics of the environment, and creates disturbance patterns that persist for decades — including on logging skid trails 40 years after last use (Trombulak & Frissell 2000). — Trombulak & Frissell, 2000 (https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x); Frissell, 2000 (https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x); Trombulak et al., 2000 (https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Mt. Baker West, Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Recission of the roadless rule would be devastating for me personally and for my community who love and respect the outdoors. Unquantified Roadless-Specific Forest Health Data Supporting Causal Rationale The DEIS asserts that the 2001 Roadless Rule "limited the Forest Service's ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns" (Rationale for the Proposed Rule, pp. 18-19), yet this three-step causal chain is offered with no acreage figures, no roadless-specific fire, insect, or disease incidence statistics, and no comparison of forest health outcomes between roaded and roadless lands. An agency asserting materially changed conditions must articulate a rational connection between facts found and the choice made, not a bare assertion, under Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002), and Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008), and unsupported factual premises violate APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). I request quantified, roadless-specific data on acres affected, fire risk indices, and treatment backlogs, with a direct roaded-versus-roadless comparison, before this rationale is relied upon to justify rescission. Failure to Provide Sensitivity Analysis for Acreage-Derived Percentages The Draft EIS's own acknowledged 0.4-million-acre discrepancy between the 44.7-million-acre IRA figure and the 44.3-million-acre National Forest System land figure is never carried forward into any of the derivative percentages presented in the Affected Environment section, including the 56 percent Tongass figure, the 66.5 percent timber-harvest restriction figure, the 54.5 percent road-construction restriction figure, and the 2.8 percent NWPS overlap figure (pp. 20-36). Having conceded uncertainty in the base acreage, the agency cannot present percentages calculated from it as precise without disclosing how that uncertainty propagates. Under Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002), an agency that identifies a data-quality problem must grapple with its implications for downstream conclusions rather than disclose it in passing. Presenting these figures without error bars is also arbitrary and capricious under APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). I request that the agency provide sensitivity ranges or error bars for every acreage-derived percentage in this section before finalizing the rescission. I oppose this rescission, clearly and without qualification. I'm asking the Department to withdraw the proposal. With respect, E Burnham CommentID: RLC-20260908-0HAQRV