Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-449506

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data regarding roadless acreage in Washington, fire risk statistics from DEIS Table 21, and economic figures including a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, to document deficiencies in the agency's analysis of the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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
    • “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”
    • “explain how opening these areas to roads advances fire safety when its own findings say the opposite”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total US production”
    • “Forest Service already carrying a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog on a budget of approximately $73 million a year”
    • “projects recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
    • “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
    • “31% of species avoiding the noise entirely”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “water quality that 1,522 intake operators depend on”

What it names

National Forests
Gifford Pinchot National ForestOlympic National ForestWenatchee National Forest
Law cited
36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 Pacific Northwest (PNW) forests of Washington (WA) and Oregon (OR) defined how I spent nearly every weekend and vacation while living in Eastern WA from 2009-2019. I hiked often in Gifford Pinchot National Forest (NF) the closest forest to where I lived. I visited Okanogan-Wenatchee NF about every 6 months from 2012-2019. I stopped regularly at Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF on my way to Seattle. In 2015, I spent a week hiking in Olympic NF with friends; it was stunning. When family visited, we hiked and camped across WA and OR, stopping to look for birds on the trails. Seeing a beautiful overlook, a mountain, or creek, I stopped to photograph moments of awe in the forests. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) and submit these specific concerns: 1) After 30 yrs of federal service in recreation, natural resource, and real estate, including management of timber contracts: logged timber will grow back; a road does not. I fear my grandchildren will inherit fewer areas like the great roadless forests in the PNW. The agency's own rule recognizes what is at stake in language that is difficult to argue with: "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)." If the existing framework already accommodates health, safety, and pre-existing rights, I ask that the agency identify on the record which specific burdens remain unaddressed by those exceptions and quantify them, rather than rescinding the entire rule to solve a problem it has not precisely named. 2) The agency's own analysis of fire risk contradicts its stated rationale. The DEIS 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." WA alone holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres: including 1,006,000 acres in Okanogan-Wenatchee; 415,000 acres in Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie; 213,000 acres in Gifford Pinchot, and 86,000 acres in Olympic NF. The agency must reconcile this rescission with DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land, and explain how opening these areas to roads advances fire safety when its own findings say the opposite. 3)The economics do not hold together either. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total US 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." That marginal production is weighed against a Forest Service already carrying a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog on a budget of approximately $73 million a year. I spent years managing federal real property and contracts; I understand what deferred maintenance costs. Creating new road maintenance obligations under a budget the agency itself has described as woefully short, and which is under further pressure from this administration's staffing cuts, makes no fiscal sense. I ask that the agency explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion backlog is justified when its own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit and projects recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year. 4) Birds are directly affected: the agency's own record acknowledges it. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31% of species avoiding the noise entirely. Across the PNW region, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency must address on the record what the rescission means for the bird communities these areas sustain and for the water quality that 1,522 intake operators depend on. Finally, the small-business certification in the supporting regulatory analysis spreads losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The agency concedes some firms may lose these receipts. That concession cannot coexist with a finding of no significant impact. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an honest assessment of the small entities actually operating in these areas. I have commented before and received no response. Forests need caretakers and enforcement of the regulations that protect them. The agency should answer each of these points in the record before it acts. Sincerely, Annette Carter, Fort Davis, TX

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