Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-590789

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

In short: The comment documents that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with the agency's own prior findings on wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, presents an economic case with a wide net present value range that fails to establish net benefit, and ignores the legal precedent from the Tenth Circuit affirming the rule's statutory authority under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, specifically regarding the protection of inventoried roadless areas in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

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 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

Water Quality Quantity
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “The forests around Mt. Baker feed those watersheds”
- “Any degradation of the roadless character... moves downstream”
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”
- “DEIS Table 21 data on fire density reinforce the same conclusion”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “Expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found the state-by-state replacement deficient”
- “Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “agency must identify, with legal precision, the basis for any contrary position”

What it names

Roadless areas: Boulder RiverHiggins MountainMt. Baker SouthMt. Baker West
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 gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas around Mt. Baker are where I go. Mt. Baker West, Mt. Baker South, Mt. Baker Noisy-Diobsud, Boulder River, Higgins Mountain, Pressentin: these are the places inside Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest that I care about, that I want protected, and that this rescission would put at risk. I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask the agency to take my comments seriously. Washington holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres. The areas I named above account for portions of that inventory that have remained intact because the 2001 rule held. Rescission would expose them to road construction and the cumulative harm that follows. Across the Pacific Northwest region, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The forests around Mt. Baker feed those watersheds. Any degradation of the roadless character of areas like Boulder River or Noisy-Diobsud does not stay in the forest; it moves downstream. The agency has not explained adequately how that burden is acceptable. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a rationale for opening roadless areas to new roads. The agency's own prior analysis says the opposite. Its 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." That is the agency's finding, not mine. The DEIS Table 21 data on fire density reinforce the same conclusion: roaded lands carry higher ignition rates than the roadless areas the rule protects. The agency must explain, with specificity, why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and it must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data already in its own record. The economic case for rescission is similarly weak on its face. The agency's own record acknowledges 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 agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value range spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. A range that wide cannot establish a net benefit. Expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog in pursuit of revenue that, by the agency's own accounting, may not materialize is not a defensible economic rationale. I ask the agency to square that arithmetic with the proposal, in plain terms, in the record. The proposal argues that state-specific rulemaking can replace a single national standard. That argument has a history the agency seems unwilling to confront directly. 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 been down this road before, and the Ninth Circuit found the state-by-state replacement deficient. The agency has never adequately answered its own prior finding that local, incremental decision-making erodes nationally significant roadless values in ways a patchwork of state rules cannot prevent. How does this proposal avoid repeating those same deficiencies? Finally, the proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. Courts that examined that question reached a different conclusion. The Tenth Circuit held, reversing the district court and remanding to vacate a permanent injunction: "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." That court found the 2001 rule within 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 identify, with legal precision, the basis for any contrary position it now holds, given that a federal appellate court already resolved this question in the rule's favor. The places I named at the outset are not abstractions. They are specific, inventoried, irreplaceable. The agency should keep the 2001 rule in place. Sincerely, Aimee Ott Bellingham, WA