Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-571567

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own findings on wildfire risk, economic net present value, and legal authority, specifically citing DEIS Table 21 and prior court rulings to document these deficiencies.

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
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the proposal with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road network already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit found the rule consistent with the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”
- “what legal basis supports a contrary position now”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,466 municipal water intakes across the Intermountain region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “The rivers there are connected to everything downstream”
- “watching that happen firsthand has made clear how much protection matters”

What it names

Roadless areas: Smoky MountainsWood River
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 knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

The rivers of Idaho's Wood River Valley and the Sawtooth Basin have changed in front of me, and watching that happen firsthand has made clear how much protection matters, not just for people now but for whoever comes next. I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that the record reflect the following concerns. The agency's own findings on fire make the wildfire justification for this proposal impossible to square. The 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." If the agency is using fire and fuels management as a rationale for opening roadless areas to road construction, it must explain why that rationale is consistent with its own prior findings, and it must reconcile the proposal with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I want that reconciliation in writing before any final action is taken. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency itself found 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." The record also shows that the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis 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, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The road network already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The mountains I hike and photograph in the Pioneer, Boulder, and Smoky Mountains, the Big Lost Range, and the Sawtooth are places people travel to precisely because they remain intact. The agency has not shown that expanding a system it cannot afford to maintain, for resource extraction that by its own numbers amounts to a fraction of a percent of national production, produces a net benefit to the public. I ask the agency to explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a positive net present value justifies that expansion. On the question of state-by-state substitutes for the national rule, the record notes 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." The agency has tried this before, and courts found problems with it. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that were identified the last time the agency moved away from a national rule toward state-specific management. The statutory authority question is not open in the way the proposal implies. A federal appellate court reviewed whether the 2001 rule exceeded congressional authorization 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 rule consistent with the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and found it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly, on this record, what legal basis supports a contrary position now. Idaho holds 280 inventoried roadless areas totaling 9,285,371 acres, and 1,466 municipal water intakes across the Intermountain region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The Boulders, Pioneers and Smoky mountain forests are ones I know well. The rivers there are connected to everything downstream, and I have seen what changes look like. This proposal deserves answers it has not yet provided.