Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-583205

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding avian habitat loss, wildfire ignition risks on roaded lands, and the lack of net economic benefit in the cost-benefit analysis, while citing the Tenth Circuit's validation of the 2001 Roadless Rule's statutory authority and requesting the agency to reconcile these findings with the proposed rescission.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “bald eagle is one reason I watch birds”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “harm to bird populations in the Tongass”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “largest intact temperate rainforest left on Earth”
- “roughly 44 percent of all the carbon stored by United States national forests”
- “intact land that remain should stay beautiful”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit held otherwise”
- “2001 rule fell within authority granted by the Organic Act”
- “state plainly what legal basis supports a contrary reading now”
Water Quality Quantity
- “more than 12,930 miles of salmon-producing streams”
- “Clean water is crucial for our survival”
- “we need water, not more roads”

What it names

National Forests: Tongass National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 Executive Order 14153

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 bald eagle is one reason I watch birds in the Tongass National Forest, and it is one reason I am filing this comment. The Tongass is the largest intact temperate rainforest left on Earth, holding 110 inventoried roadless areas totaling 9,339,575 acres, more than 12,930 miles of salmon-producing streams, and roughly 44 percent of all the carbon stored by United States national forests. Executive Order 14153 directs the agency to exclude the Tongass expressly from the 2001 Roadless Rule, and the Federal Register rescission notice says so in writing. Under both action alternatives, the Tongass keeps zero acres of roadless protection. I am asking this agency to reconsider, and to answer the specific questions below on the record. Our public lands should be preserved for future generations and managed so we can take pride in the country we live in. Is nothing sacred anymore? Is all of this for short-term gain and pillaging? The small pockets of intact land that remain should stay beautiful and free of industrial development, and the decision now before this agency will determine whether that is possible. I urge the agency to weigh that obligation in its response to each issue I raise here. On the matter of birds: the DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The Tongass supports verified populations of bald eagles and marbled murrelets, among others. Opening 9,339,575 acres of currently protected rainforest habitat to road construction is not a minor adjustment; it is a landscape-scale change whose documented consequences for avian communities appear in the agency's own environmental record. I ask the agency to explain what weight it gave those findings when it decided the benefits of rescission outweigh the harm to bird populations in the Tongass and elsewhere. On fire: 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 advances wildfire and fuels management as partial justification for rescission. I ask that the agency explain how the proposal departs from those prior findings and 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. On economics: the agency's own analysis shows 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." Clean water is crucial for our survival, and we need water, not more roads. The agency's 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 negative $92 million to positive $199 million. The agency must reconcile the proposal with a cost-benefit analysis that cannot establish a net benefit, and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog serves the public interest. On the legal history of state-by-state approaches: the agency's record acknowledges 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." That approach was already tested and litigated. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. On statutory authority: the proposal argues the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress granted. The Tenth Circuit held otherwise, stating: "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 should address the Tenth Circuit's conclusion that the 2001 rule fell within authority granted by the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and state plainly what legal basis supports a contrary reading now. Future generations will inherit what we decide today. They deserve an answer to each of these questions before this rule is rescinded. Sincerely, Brooke Thompson Juneau, Alaska