Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-575705

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed 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 contradicts its own record data regarding wildfire ignition risks on roaded lands, presents a cost-benefit analysis that fails to establish a net economic benefit, and ignores prior judicial findings regarding the legal authority and deficiencies of state-specific alternatives.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “opening rare habitats to permanent road building and extraction”
- “Rare plant life and habitat that hold national significance cannot be protected incrementally”
- “Say no to big industry destroying habitat and rare plant life”
- “conservation should be taught and practiced, not traded away”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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”
- “introducing roads increases ignition risk dramatically”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
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”
- “agency is already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it already has”
- “marginal and uncertain economic returns”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit identified deficiencies in precisely that state-by-state replacement”
- “legal basis for any contrary position it now takes”
- “statutory authority argument underlying the proposal has already been resolved by a federal appellate court”

What it names

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 forests and wild lands this rule protects are a rarity, and the agency's own record makes clear why rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be a serious mistake. I oppose this rescission without reservation. Public lands that remain wild have been preserved for a reason, and that reason is not so that certain industries can exploit them for timber, oil, and minerals. Wood that ends up as a pallet tossed after one use is not a justification for opening rare habitats to permanent road building and extraction. These are limited areas. Industry has no right to exploitation of preserved habitats, and conservation should be taught and practiced, not traded away for marginal and uncertain economic returns. The agency's own findings on wildfire make the case against this proposal with particular force. The record before the agency 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 justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet the agency's own data show that introducing roads increases ignition risk dramatically. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and that it 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. The economic rationale for rescission is equally difficult to sustain. The record the agency compiled 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." These are not significant national supply figures. 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. Instead of exploiting our public lands for industry, we should be granting them funding to maintain and preserve their ability to function. The agency is already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it already has, on a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. It cannot explain on the record how an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already strained past its means. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can replace the national rule, but this ground has already been tested. The record reflects that the agency previously described its "dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule" and its rejection of the rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach," citing 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. What the record also reflects is that the Ninth Circuit identified deficiencies in precisely that state-by-state replacement. Rare plant life and habitat that hold national significance cannot be protected incrementally, region by region. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the specific deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency tried this approach. Finally, the statutory authority argument underlying the proposal has already been resolved by a federal appellate court. The record states: "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 that 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. The agency must explain, with specificity, the legal basis for any contrary position it now takes. These public lands belong to all of us. Say no to big industry destroying habitat and rare plant life. The agency should answer each of these points in full before proceeding further. Sincerely, Lisa Stroud Arroyo Grande, CA 93420