Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-572376

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fails to reconcile its wildfire and economic rationales with its own draft EIS data and cost-benefit analysis, which show higher fire density on roaded lands and a lack of net economic benefit, while also failing to address the legal precedents upholding the 2001 rule under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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
- “quiet and not overrun with people”
- “paddle Tally Lake, Flathead Lake, and Whitefish Lake”
- “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”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
Water Quality Quantity
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “more damaged streams, and more water quality problems downstream”
- “prevent that outcome here”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit upheld the 2001 rule as within the authority Congress granted”
- “state-by-state approach this proposal favors has been tried and rejected”
- “legal basis it relies on in departing from those holdings”

What it names

National Forests: Flathead 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 placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My property borders the Flathead National Forest. I go there because it is quiet and not overrun with people. I paddle Tally Lake, Flathead Lake, and Whitefish Lake. These places matter to me, and this administration's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would damage them in ways that cannot be undone. Our public lands should be managed for conservation, not extraction, which is all this administration seems to care about. The Roadless Rule reflects a straightforward commitment: some country stays intact. Rescinding it abandons that commitment without a credible reason. The agency's own record undermines its wildfire rationale. The agency has previously found that "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 does not explain how it departs from that finding. I ask that the agency 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, and explain that departure in plain terms that the public can evaluate. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency has acknowledged 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 $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. The agency cannot establish a net benefit on its own numbers. It is also already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it has, with a road budget of about $73 million a year. It would be far better if tax dollars went to something other than projects no one wants or needs. The agency must explain on the record how opening new roadless country to development is justified when its own analysis cannot show the action pays. The Flathead National Forest is already over logged. We see it at the end of every winter. When you cut down most of the trees and do not leave enough buffer, what survives cannot stay standing or hold up to wind. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. More roads into this landscape means more sediment, more damaged streams, and more water quality problems downstream. I expect the agency to address that relationship directly and explain what specific protections, enforceable ones, would prevent that outcome here. The state-by-state approach this proposal favors has been tried and rejected. The record reflects 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 previously found that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. How does this proposal avoid repeating the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach? The agency must answer that question on the docket. Finally, the proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. Courts that examined that question reached the opposite conclusion. One court found, after full review: "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 upheld the 2001 rule as within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and held it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly what legal basis it relies on in departing from those holdings. I oppose this rescission. The Flathead country I border and paddle is worth protecting, and the agency has not made the case that rescission serves the public interest. Sincerely, Julie Sebby Whitefish, MT