Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-414203

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 15, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, wildlife habitat loss, and economic costs, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent and existing regulatory exceptions to argue that the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is unsupported by the agency's own record and legal 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “elk survival rates rose during a road closure”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “salmon returning to their home stream”
- “protect these cold-water systems”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures”
- “warmer temperatures can reduce egg survival, rearing densities, and growth of coho salmon”
- “protect these cold-water systems”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “rule fell within authority granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA”
- “rule as written already accommodates the uses the agency says it prevents”

What it names

National Forests: Olympic National Forest
Roadless areas: Jefferson RidgeMoonlight Dome
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 forests I visit on the Olympic National Forest hold birds, elk, salmon, and other creatures that are unlikely to survive in a city. I can watch salmon returning to their home stream in Washington, where centuries of undisturbed growth remain to shade the riparian habitat. My children and great-grandchildren deserve that same experience, the beauty and quiet of a natural forest, just as I experienced as a child without roads designed for heavy equipment. This proposal would destroy that inheritance, and the agency's own record does not support it. The agency argues that rescission serves wildfire and fuels management goals, but its own draft environmental impact statement 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from these findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The elk that range through Jefferson Ridge and Moonlight Dome select habitat away from roads, and the agency's own cited research found that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. The birds I watch across the Olympic forests are similarly affected: the DEIS cites findings that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. Washington holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and the agency has not shown that expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog improves habitat for either species. The agency must explain on the record how roads serve the wildlife populations it is simultaneously obligated to protect. The salmon returning to streams within these areas depend on riparian conditions that roads compromise. Removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures beyond what suits cold-water species, and warmer temperatures can reduce egg survival, rearing densities, and growth of coho salmon. The affected area includes Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitats managed by NMFS. Watching salmon return is not a casual interest for me; it is one of the specific reasons I photograph these forests. The agency has not explained how it will protect these cold-water systems once the rule's prohibitions are removed. On the economics, the agency's own analysis 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." The same record projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency must reconcile the proposal with a Cost Benefit Analysis that cannot establish a net benefit and must explain how expanding a road network already $6.9 billion behind on maintenance serves the public interest. The agency also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority, but the Tenth Circuit addressed that question directly, exercising jurisdiction and holding: "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 must address that court's finding that the rule fell within authority granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness, and must state the basis for any contrary legal position it now holds. Finally, the rule as written already accommodates the uses the agency says it prevents. The agency's own summary notes that it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The agency must identify which specific burdens are not already addressed by these existing exceptions and quantify them. A rule that already permits construction for public health and safety, that already accommodates existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection, does not need to be rescinded. It needs to be defended. Sincerely, Francesca Ritson Shelton, WA