Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-436497

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's wildfire risk analysis, economic justification, and legal reasoning regarding the rescission of the Roadless Rule, citing the agency's own data, cost-benefit analysis, and prior court findings.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire argument the agency is making against the Roadless Rule collapses”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “most wildfires start within a half mile of roads”
- “expanding road access with a record that ties roads directly to ignition risk”
Water Quality Quantity
- “watershed those acres protect delivers some of the cleanest freshwater in the lower 48”
- “286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “feeding the Boundary Waters”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The economics do not hold up either”
- “net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency has tried before to replace this national rule with a state-by-state approach and lost in court”
- “The Ninth Circuit found that approach deficient”
- “The Tenth Circuit already reviewed the question and held”
- “the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”

What it names

National Forests: Superior National Forest
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 The peace and tranquility of the Superior National Forest is worth protecting. I fish those waters in Minnesota, and I do not want to hear logging trucks rolling through while I am out there. Living in Iowa, I have no roadless areas of my own to defend, but what remains in Minnesota matters to me, and I am asking this agency to stop this rescission. The wildfire argument the agency is making against the Roadless Rule collapses against the agency's own findings. The record 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 understand from science that most wildfires start within a half mile of roads. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement, DEIS Table 21, reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must explain on the record why this proposal departs from those findings and how it reconciles expanding road access with a record that ties roads directly to ignition risk. The economics do not hold up either. The agency's own record acknowledges that "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 agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. The Superior National Forest alone holds 62,004 acres across 13 inventoried roadless areas feeding the Boundary Waters, and the watershed those acres protect delivers some of the cleanest freshwater in the lower 48. Minnesota as a whole holds 62,081 acres across 16 inventoried roadless areas, and across the Eastern region 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. How does an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify expanding a road system the agency already cannot afford to maintain? The agency must answer that question in this record. The agency has tried before to replace this national rule with a state-by-state approach and lost in court. The record reflects that the USDA had discussed its dissatisfaction with a one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach. The Ninth Circuit found that approach deficient. The gray wolf, moose, Canada lynx, common loon, bald eagle, lake sturgeon, and northern long-eared bat that depend on the Superior's roadless acres do not observe state lines, and nationally significant values erode incrementally when decisions are made locally. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can chip away at those values and explain how this proposal avoids repeating the same legal defects. On statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit already reviewed the question 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 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. If the agency now takes a contrary position, it must explain the legal basis for that position in this record. Once these areas are gone, they are gone forever. Do not cave to corporate pressure and rescind a rule that the agency's own data, its own economics, and the federal courts have all upheld. Sincerely, Alan Farley Perry, Iowa