Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-516466

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted September 30, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is inconsistent with its own draft environmental impact statement data regarding wildfire ignition rates, its cost-benefit analysis showing potential net negative economic value, and its statutory obligations regarding water quality, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent affirming the rule's legal validity.

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, 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
- “chance to climb peaks and get away”
- “Roadless areas on the national forests are where that escape is possible”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “fire season grow noticeably longer and worse”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
Water Quality Quantity
- “drinking water starts in those watersheds”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “Fewer than 12 percent of the watersheds fed by roadless areas have impaired streams”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit held the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit has already weighed in on the deficiencies”
- “state-by-state management”

What it names

National Forests: Boise 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: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The suburban sprawl I'm stuck in makes the chance to climb peaks and get away all the more necessary. Roadless areas on the national forests are where that escape is possible. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask the agency to respond to the points below. What we would lose here could never be replaced in my lifetime, nor in many lifetimes. These lands are valuable precisely because they have not been exploited for quarterly earnings. That is not a sentimental argument; it is a factual one about irreversibility. Rescission opens a permanent door. On fire, I have watched fire season grow noticeably longer and worse since I have lived near Boise NF, beginning in 2010. The agency's own 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." The proposal nevertheless invokes wildfire management as a justification for rescission and the road-building that would follow. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. On economics, 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." The agency must reconcile this proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. On the state-by-state rationale, the record shows that "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." That is the agency quoting itself favorably, but the agency has also found that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The Ninth Circuit has already weighed in on the deficiencies of replacing a national rule with state-by-state management. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies. On statutory authority, the proposal argues the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress granted. The court record shows otherwise: "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 held 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 holds a contrary position, it must state the legal basis for that position with specificity. The water question should be obvious to anybody paying attention. Fewer than 12 percent of the watersheds fed by roadless areas have impaired streams today. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The agency has not explained how rescission is consistent with its obligations to the roughly 24 million Americans whose drinking water starts in those watersheds. That explanation is required before this rulemaking can proceed. Sincerely, Graham Hill Boise, Idaho