Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-399621

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 10/24Owed an answerPosted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific agency data showing that roads increase wildfire ignition risk and that the economic benefits of rescission are negligible compared to maintenance backlogs and recreation losses, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent to challenge the agency's statutory authority and demanding an explanation of how the proposal reconciles these internal contradictions and procedural deficiencies.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “wildfire argument for rescission collapses under the agency's own evidence”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
Water Quality Quantity
- “More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by these roadless areas”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “American citizens rely on clean water for drinking, farming, and food”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “agency is already carrying a maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit reviewed the 2001 rule and held... the court found the rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “courts did not accept that reasoning the last time the agency substituted local decision-making for the national rule”
- “explain, with specific legal grounding, the basis for any position that the 2001 rule exceeded that authority”

What it names

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 Wildlife, watersheds and forests are part of our ecosystem's balance and weather patterns, and that balance depends on land the agency still has the power to protect. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens to undo what the National Park and Forest Systems were built to do: conserve the natural beauty of this country so that all can enjoy it. I oppose this rescission fully, and I ask the agency to answer the specific questions I raise below. The proposal uses wildfire and fuels management as part of its rationale, but the agency's own record says the opposite of what that rationale implies. The agency's own text 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." If the agency's own data show that roads increase ignition risk rather than reduce it, the wildfire argument for rescission collapses under the agency's own evidence. I ask that the agency explain, with citations to the record, why the proposal departs from these prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with the fire density data in its own draft environmental impact statement. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. 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." These are not the numbers of a national economic emergency. Yet the proposal would open roads into country that has none, at the expense of recreation values and water protection, while the agency is already carrying a maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. If current roads cannot be maintained, it makes no sense to develop more. Improve what is already in place. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. How does an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify expanding a road network the agency already cannot afford to maintain? The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but the agency has been down that road before and found it wanting. Its own record reflects that "the USDA 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." The courts did not accept that reasoning the last time the agency substituted local decision-making for the national rule. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local approaches can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that doomed the earlier state-by-state attempt. On the question of statutory authority, the agency has also already received a definitive answer. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the 2001 rule 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. The agency must explain, with specific legal grounding, the basis for any position that the 2001 rule exceeded that authority, given that federal appellate review already went the other way. More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by these roadless areas, and the agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. American citizens rely on clean water for drinking, farming, and food. Water systems are already deteriorating, and opening these areas to roads and the sediment they carry will make that worse. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and received 1.6 million comments before writing this rule. It has held none to undo it. We need to protect these resources and this land for our children and for the future of our ecological systems. Please do not create more endangered species and more impaired watersheds when the record already tells you what roads do. The agency must state on the record what public process it believes satisfies its obligations here, and why that process is adequate. Sincerely, Mary Pat Starnes 46 Robin Hill Drive Naperville, IL 60540-7317