Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-485381

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

In short: The comment documents specific contradictions between the proposed rescission and the agency's own record regarding wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, economic cost-benefit analyses showing negative net present value, and prior legal rulings upholding the 2001 rule, while requesting the agency reconcile these discrepancies and state its legal basis for the new proposal.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “hike, backpack, camp, climb, and snowshoe”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “managed for the use of all citizens, now and in the future”
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”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “timber revenue to the Forest Service of only $5.2 to $11.4 million a year”
- “agency already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Watershed protection at that scale is precisely the kind of nationally significant value”

What it names

National Forests: Olympic National Forest
Roadless areas: Green MountainJefferson RidgeJupiter RidgeMt. ZionUpper Skokomish
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests of the Olympic Peninsula are where I hike, backpack, camp, climb, and snowshoe. Areas like Upper Skokomish, Jupiter Ridge, Jefferson Ridge, Green Mountain, Lightning, and Mt. Zion, each an inventoried roadless area within Olympic National Forest in Washington, represent exactly the kind of country this rule has protected for over two decades. Washington holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of it at risk, and I oppose this proposal in the strongest terms. These lands should be managed for the use of all citizens, now and in the future. What is being proposed here is painfully shortsighted and exploitative. The agency has argued that rescission supports wildfire and fuels management. Its own record says otherwise. The agency's prior findings state: "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." If this is the agency's own documented finding, the proposal must explain why it is departing from it. I ask that the agency reconcile this rescission with the ignition data contained in DEIS Table 21, which the record indicates shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and that it address this contradiction directly. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record 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." Against that minimal extractive contribution, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of only $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. Not only is this a misappropriation of tax dollars, it is a misuse of natural and national resources for the future. The agency already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog on a road budget of approximately $73 million a year. Building new roads into country that has none, to capture a resource share measured in fractions of a percent of national production, while the agency cannot maintain the roads it already has, makes no fiscal sense. The agency must explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies further expansion of a road system already in arrears by that margin. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's own record documents that this path has already been tried and rejected. The record states: "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit has already reviewed the last attempt to substitute state-specific rulemaking for the 2001 rule, and the agency knows what resulted. Across the Pacific Northwest region, which includes Washington, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Watershed protection at that scale is precisely the kind of nationally significant value that localized, incremental decision-making has been found to erode. The agency must address how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies identified the last time it pursued this approach. On the question of statutory authority, the record is equally clear. A federal appellate court already addressed whether the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's legal power 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 Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly what legal basis it now relies on for any contrary position, and that explanation belongs in the record before any final action is taken. Sincerely, William Thomas Day Port Orchard, Washington