Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-467202

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted September 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is legally flawed, economically unsound, and procedurally deficient, citing overwhelming public opposition, settled litigation history, and specific gaps in NEPA and Tribal consultation, while requesting the Department withdraw the rule or select the No Action alternative.

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, Alternative, 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

Public Opinion Support
- “220,000 comment letters on behalf of over 625,000 individuals”
- “majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition”
- “likely voters support the Roadless Rule 76 to 13 percent”
- “87 percent said national forest areas should be kept mostly undeveloped”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “legal questions are settled”
- “Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2012”
- “arbitrary and capricious precisely because the Department reversed its own 2001 findings”
- “APA requires the Department to engage”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “economics do not work”
- “$5.2-11.4 million per year to the Treasury from timber”
- “$6.1 million in annual recreation losses”
- “$6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale is self-contradicting”
- “greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential”
- “Only 24 percent of inventoried roadless acres overlap the wildland-urban interface”
- “current rule already allows fire and fuels work”

What it names

Law cited: 5 U.S.C. 553 7 CFR 1.28 795 F.3d 956 E.O. 12866

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation RIN 0596-AD66 | Docket FS-2025-0001 | 91 FR 53827 I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask the Department to withdraw it. My full comment is attached. The Department already knows what the public thinks. Its own preamble reports that the 2025 notice of intent drew more than 220,000 comment letters on behalf of over 625,000 individuals and organizations in twenty-one days, and that "the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition." Independent analysis found opposition above 99 percent of unique submitters. A December 2025 national poll by Susquehanna Polling and Research for The Pew Charitable Trusts found likely voters support the Roadless Rule 76 to 13 percent, with support highest among Republicans at 77 percent; 87 percent said national forest areas should be kept mostly undeveloped and intact, against 7 percent favoring more timber production and roads. The rule being rescinded was adopted on the largest public record in this agency's history: 600-plus hearings and over 1.6 million comments. I ask the final rule to state plainly what public support the Department believes exists for this action, and to identify the evidence for it. Notice-and-comment is not a referendum, and I do not ask the Department to treat it as one. But this record is evidence the APA requires the Department to engage: of the reliance interests it must weigh in reversing a settled policy, of the public values MUSYA and NFMA require it to consider, and of the 2001 factual findings it must confront before abandoning them. The attached comment sets out 49 reasons. The principal ones: Rescission is unnecessary. The preamble itself notes that any State or Tribe may petition for tailored roadless provisions under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR 1.28. Idaho and Colorado did exactly that, and this proposal preserves both state rules. Local flexibility does not require eliminating the national baseline. The legal questions are settled. The rule was challenged in the Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits and prevailed in each; the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2012. No challenge to the 2001 Rule has ever succeeded on final judgment. The suits that did succeed struck down attempts to weaken it, including Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), which held the 2003 Tongass exemption arbitrary and capricious precisely because the Department reversed its own 2001 findings without explanation. That is the defect in this proposal, on a national scale. The preamble cites that litigation history as a reason to rescind; it shows the opposite. The economics do not work. The Department projects $5.2-11.4 million per year to the Treasury from timber, against roughly $6.1 million in annual recreation losses and a conceded $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges. It calls the rule economically significant under E.O. 12866 and says impacts "could exceed $100 million," yet certifies no significant impact on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Those findings need reconciling. The wildfire rationale is self-contradicting. The preamble concedes "greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential." Only 24 percent of inventoried roadless acres overlap the wildland-urban interface, so a nationwide rescission is far broader than the stated community-protection purpose requires. The current rule already allows fire and fuels work. The NEPA analysis is segmented. The Department concedes that subsequent plan amendments "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," then declares those effects beyond scope while soliciting comment on them. It also declines to fully analyze the No Action, Strengthened Roadless Rule, and Traditional Homelands alternatives commenters requested. Tribal consultation is unfinished. Of 64 requests, 34 were scheduled and 29 held. The final Tribal Impact Summary Statement is to issue with the final rule, after comment closes, so neither Tribes nor the public can comment on it. The ANILCA 810 subsistence analysis is likewise outside this period. I ask the Department to withdraw the rule; failing that, to select No Action, fully analyze the requested alternatives and foreseeable plan amendments, publish the Tribal and subsistence analyses for comment before any final rule, reconcile its economic findings, confront its 2001 findings and the reliance built on them, and use the existing petition process for documented local needs. I have hiked the entirety of the Pacific Crest Trail and the Tahoe Rim Trail and explored National Forests in more than twenty states. Much of that ground was inventoried roadless area. These places are drinking water, habitat, and the last unfragmented country we have, and there is no process that makes more of them.