Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-436136

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

In short: The comment establishes that the Tongass National Forest is ecologically distinct from the fire-prone Western forests cited in the rescission rationale, documents Tribal opposition to the rule change, and requests specific exclusions and analyses for the Tongass.

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

  • Tribal Sovereignty
    • “Tribal and Alaska Native subsistence, food security, and culture”
    • “Tribal governments opposed this rescission, citing threats to sovereignty”
    • “inadequate government-to-government consultation”
    • “Tribal co-stewardship and Traditional Ecological Knowledge”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “old-growth stands are a major carbon sink”
    • “Tongass is a temperate coastal rainforest”
    • “rationale simply doesn't apply”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “sustains bald eagle and wildlife habitat”
    • “strip protection from nearly all 58.5 million acres”
    • “opening up to 18.2 million acres to road construction”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “salmon-bearing watersheds”
    • “central to Tribal and Alaska Native subsistence”
    • “food security”

What it names

National Forests
Tongass National Forest
Law cited
575 F.3d 999

The comment

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

PUBLIC COMMENT RE: Docket No. FS–2025–0001; RIN 0596–AD66 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation — Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule** Submitted to: Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov Submitted by: Julie Stoner Date: September 16, 2026 I'm writing to urge USDA to exclude the Tongass National Forest from any rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. USDA justifies this rescission by pointing to drought, wildfire, and insect/disease risks concentrated in Western forests. The Tongass is a temperate coastal rainforest, not a fire-prone Western forest — the rationale simply doesn't apply. Before any rule change affects the Tongass, USDA should have to show forest-specific data proving otherwise. This rescission's reach is enormous: it would strip protection from nearly all 58.5 million acres covered by the 2001 Rule, opening up to 18.2 million acres to road construction and 4.8 million acres to expanded logging nationwide — effects far beyond where the stated wildfire rationale even makes sense. The Tongass carries real, documented reliance interests: its old-growth stands are a major carbon sink, it sustains bald eagle and wildlife habitat, and its salmon-bearing watersheds are central to Tribal and Alaska Native subsistence, food security, and culture. USDA's own consultation record shows most Tribal governments opposed this rescission, citing threats to sovereignty and inadequate government-to-government consultation. That opposition deserves real weight, and a full ANILCA Section 810 subsistence analysis is owed before any decision affecting the Tongass moves forward. This also isn't the first attempt to unwind roadless protections — the 2001 Rule survived exactly this kind of rollback once already, in litigation culminating in the Ninth Circuit's 2009 decision in (California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA 575 F.3d 999). A rushed, one-size-fits-all rescission is likely to end up back in court. I'm asking USDA to: - Exclude the Tongass from any final rescission, or adopt a Tongass-specific framework built on Tribal co-stewardship and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (e.g., the "Strengthened Roadless Rule Alternative"). - Complete a full ANILCA Section 810 subsistence analysis for the Tongass before finalizing any rule affecting it. - Provide Tongass-specific data justifying the wildfire/forest-health rationale, or drop it. - Give substantial weight to the Tribal governments' documented opposition. - Conduct forest-specific analysis for other significantly affected forests, rather than one blanket nationwide justification. Thank you for considering my comment. Julie Stoner Sagaponack, New York

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless