Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-578784

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

In short: The comment documents that the agency's justification for rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with its own DEIS findings on wildfire ignition rates and fails to address the specific impacts on salmon habitat, water quality, and local economic interests, while also challenging the legal basis of the rescission in light of a prior Tenth Circuit ruling.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “clean rivers and waterways are essential for drinking water”
- “removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures”
- “sediment loads that follow would put that spawning habitat at direct risk”
- “communities and commercial fishing economies that depend on cold, clean water”
Wildlife Habitat
- “trails I ride wind through habitat deep in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest”
- “major spawning ground for salmon”
- “reduce egg survival, rearing densities and growth of coho salmon”
- “Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitats managed by NMFS”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “appreciate the quiet and wild landscapes”
- “exploring a roadless environment on their own two feet”
- “far from vehicles and noise and the significant impacts of humans”
- “sustained and kept as wild as possible”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “federal appellate court already resolved that question”
- “Tenth Circuit holding means for its current authority argument”
- “rule as written already allows exceptions”
- “agency should withdraw that certification”

What it names

National Forests: Wenatchee National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 trails I ride wind through habitat deep in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. I was born here, I have lived here my whole life, and I am raising my two daughters to appreciate the quiet and wild landscapes that define this place. What I want for these lands is simple: that they be sustained and kept as wild as possible, so that my two daughters and their children can have the same experiences I had as a child, exploring a roadless environment on their own two feet, far from vehicles and noise and the significant impacts of humans. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens exactly that, and I oppose it. Washington holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres. Building new roads into that country is not a small decision. The agency's own 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." The proposal nonetheless justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds. That justification cannot be squared with those findings. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which the record indicates reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I live in a rural part of eastern Washington where clean rivers and waterways are essential for drinking water, agriculture, and wildlife. Our watershed is a major spawning ground for salmon, which in turn provide a significant economy for so many commercial fishermen and women. Across the Pacific Northwest region, which includes Washington, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Salmon are already stressed by warming water, and the science the agency has before it shows that removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures beyond what suits cold-water species and can reduce egg survival, rearing densities and growth of coho salmon, in areas that include Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitats managed by NMFS. Opening these drainages to road construction and the sediment loads that follow would put that spawning habitat at direct risk. The agency must explain, with specificity, how this rescission is consistent with its obligations to Essential Fish Habitat and to the communities and commercial fishing economies that depend on cold, clean water coming out of these roadless watersheds. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority, but a federal appellate court already resolved that question. That court's disposition reads: "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 owes the public a direct answer to what that Tenth Circuit holding means for its current authority argument, including whether it believes the rule created de facto wilderness in a way that court rejected, and what legal basis supports a position contrary to that ruling. The agency also claims permitting and administrative burden as grounds for rescission, but the rule as written already allows exceptions. As the agency's own analysis acknowledges: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The agency has not shown which specific burdens fall outside those existing exceptions. Currently the federal government cannot rally the funds to maintain the trailheads and infrastructure we already have on this forest, so adding more would be impossible. Selling or opening our public lands to private interests without our consent is robbing us of what we have all chosen to steward together. The agency should identify and quantify, on the record, which burdens are genuinely unaddressed by the rule's existing health, safety, and mineral lease exceptions before citing administrative burden as a reason to eliminate protection for millions of acres. The agency should withdraw that certification and conduct a genuine assessment focused on the small businesses actually operating in these roadless areas, not a national average that obscures the localized harm. Sincerely, Samuel Naney Winthrop, Washington