Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-571496

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is contradicted by its own DEIS findings regarding wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, economic net present value ranges that do not confirm a net benefit, and documented harm to bird communities, while also highlighting the agency's failure to address impacts on 1,522 municipal water intakes in Washington and the legal authority established by the Tenth Circuit.

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
- “wildfire rationale for rescission is contradicted”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Wildlife Habitat
- “birds I go out to see”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect drinking water”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “road construction in these watersheds”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit has already ruled otherwise”
- “2001 rule fell within authority Congress granted”
- “state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule”

What it names

Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Shellfish are my connection to the Pacific coast, through crabbing and clam digs along Washington's shoreline. The state I come from holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and I hike and camp the state and national parks there, going out to see what birds reside in a given spot rather than chasing a target species. I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask that the agency answer the specific points below. The wildfire rationale for rescission is contradicted by the agency's own record. 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 fire and fuels management as grounds for opening these areas to new road construction. The agency must explain on the record why the proposal departs from these findings, and must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is similarly unsupported by the agency's own numbers. The DEIS states 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 marginal supply-side figure, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, offset by recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value range spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. The agency should explain on the record how a proposal whose own analysis cannot confirm it pays off justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Washington's roadless acres also protect drinking water. Across the Pacific Northwest region, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency has not addressed what road construction in these watersheds would mean for those intakes, and I ask that it do so. The birds I go out to see wherever I stop in Washington's parks and forests are precisely the species the record shows are harmed by road presence and road noise in forested habitat. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence, that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, and that 31 percent of species avoided the noise entirely, drawing on Kroeger et al. 2022, McClure et al. 2013, and Ware et al. The agency should say plainly how this documented harm to bird communities inside roadless areas factors into its decision. On the legal authority question, the agency argues that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory mandate, but the Tenth Circuit has already ruled 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 agency must address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the 2001 rule fell within authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and state the basis for any contrary position it now intends to take. Finally, the proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. The agency's own record reflects its prior view that the Roadless Rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach" was unsatisfactory. 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. But the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-specific framework, that approach was rejected in litigation. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies, or addressed its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. That question deserves a real answer here. Sincerely, David Lee Tacoma, Washington