Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-353776

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rule rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contains a gap in its cost-benefit analysis and an incomplete Tribal consultation record, specifically noting that only 29 of 64 requested consultations have been held and that ANILCA Section 810 subsistence hearings remain undated.

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

Tribal Sovereignty
- “Tribal consultation is incomplete”
- “majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition”
- “threats to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival”
- “ANILCA Section 810 subsistence hearings”
Governance Policy Process
- “reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act”
- “draft EIS's alternatives analysis must not be a formality”
- “final rule and response-to-comments specifically address each one”
- “consultation is incomplete as of this proposal”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “recreation and tourism losses of $6.1 million annually”
- “total additional impacts could exceed $100 million per year”
- “modest, uncertain gains against agency-estimated costs”
- “5 to 10 percent increase in national sawtimber harvest”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “global climate significance of the forest as a critical carbon sink”
- “disclose the carbon-sink and cumulative landscape-level effects”
- “removing the national prohibition across all 58.5 million acres”

What it names

National Forests: Tongass National Forest
Law cited: 36 CFR part 294 5 U.S.C. 706 E.O. 13175

The comment

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

I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B). I request that USDA specifically address each point below in the final rule and response-to-comments, as required for reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). ## 1. The draft EIS's alternatives analysis must not be a formality The preamble states that Tribal consultees requested specific alternatives, including a "No Action" alternative, a "Strengthened Roadless Rule Alternative," and a "Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule" incorporating Tribal co-stewardship and consent (Tribal Input Received section). It also records that Tribal participants "noted the global climate significance of the forest as a critical carbon sink," referring to the Tongass National Forest (same section). I request that the final EIS include a full, good-faith analysis of each requested alternative and disclose the carbon-sink and cumulative landscape-level effects of removing the national prohibition across all 58.5 million acres at once, not merely note that these concerns were raised. ## 2. The rule's own cost-benefit findings do not support the action The preamble states that only about 4.8 million acres (16 percent of forested inventoried roadless areas) meet both operability and plan criteria for expanded timber harvest, and that even full harvest of those areas — called "unlikely due to budgets, unforeseen limits on operability, and market conditions" — would yield only a 5 to 10 percent increase in national sawtimber harvest and $5.2–11.4 million per year in Treasury/Forest Service revenue. Against this, the same preamble estimates recreation and tourism losses of $6.1 million annually and states total additional impacts "could exceed $100 million" per year. The proposed rule does not explain why this tradeoff — modest, uncertain gains against agency-estimated costs exceeding $100 million annually — justifies rescinding a 25-year-old national protection. I request the final rule reconcile this discrepancy directly rather than restate general deregulatory policy goals. ## 3. Tribal consultation is incomplete, and majority opposition is already documented The preamble states the Forest Service received 64 requests for Tribal consultation, of which only 29 have been held, and that consultations "will be ongoing throughout the rulemaking process" — meaning the record shows consultation is incomplete as of this proposal. It also states that "the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission," citing threats to "inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival, and the ecological health of ancestral homelands." The preamble itself concludes this rescission "would have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes ... and therefore warrants consultation under E.O. 13175." Given that determination, USDA should not finalize this rule until consultation is complete for all 64 requesting Tribes and the required ANILCA Section 810 subsistence hearings for Alaska — currently undated, with details "announced in a subsequent notice" — are held and incorporated into the record. ## Conclusion Each point above is drawn directly from USDA's own proposed rule. I request that the final rule and response-to-comments specifically address each one, consistent with the agency's obligation to engage in reasoned decisionmaking and respond to significant comments in the rulemaking record.