Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-523722

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 30, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition data on roaded lands, net economic benefits, and the legal validity of the 2001 Roadless Rule, specifically challenging the application of these findings to the named roadless units in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

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
- “creeks I fish off-trail”
- “roadless country I hike”
- “quiet country”
- “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”
- “ignition data showing far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule”
- “Ninth Circuit identified the last time the national rule was replaced”
- “Tenth Circuit addressed that question directly”
- “rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

What it names

Roadless areas: Boulder RiverHiggins MountainMt. Baker SouthMt. Baker West
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The creeks I fish off-trail and the roadless country I hike across more than a dozen times a year are the reason I am filing this comment. The areas I am writing about, Pressentin, Mt. Baker West, Boulder River, Mt. Baker South, Mt. Baker Noisy-Diobsud, and Higgins Mountain, all within Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington, are places where I can be in the presence of wildlife without having other humans around. That matters to me. It brings perspective to my world, and no amount of timber or gas revenue restores it once a road goes in. The agency's own record on fire contradicts the case it is now making. 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." The proposal nonetheless invokes wildfire and fuels management as a justification for opening these areas to roads. The agency must explain the departure, reconcile the rescission with DEIS Table 21's ignition data showing far higher fire density on roaded land, and address specifically why that finding does not apply to the roadless units I fish and hike on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie. The economics are also poorly supported. The record before the agency 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." Against that, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. It cannot establish a net benefit. Washington already holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, including the creek drainages where I fish. The agency needs to explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog is justified when its own analysis cannot confirm the action produces a net gain. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. The record shows the agency has been down that road. The DEIS states 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 prior state-specific approach was challenged and failed in court. The agency must address its own finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the national rule was replaced with a patchwork of state petitions. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit addressed that question directly. Reviewing the challenge to the rule, it 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." That court found the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency should state plainly, with legal reasoning, why it believes any contrary position is supportable given that holding. I fish creeks I reach by going off-trail. I hike these forests to find quiet country. What I am asking is straightforward: before this agency removes the protection that keeps these places intact, it must answer the questions its own record raises and has not resolved. Sincerely, JUSTIN GERARDY GLACIER, WA