Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-601871

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from the agency's own records regarding sediment production, fire ignition rates, and cost-benefit analysis ranges to demonstrate that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule lacks a valid economic or safety justification and conflicts with prior legal holdings regarding the agency's authority.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “Water is becoming more scarce as reduced precipitation is increasing”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by roadless areas”
- “Opening these areas to roads threatens to move them into the impaired column”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “The rivers I paddle run through multiple wilderness areas”
- “I go there to get away from cars, infrastructure, and noise”
- “Silence and beauty warm the soul”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
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”
- “If the goal is reducing fire risk, building roads works against that goal”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “The Ninth Circuit reviewed that state-specific replacement and found it wanting”
- “The agency must address the Tenth Circuit's holding”

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 placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The rivers I paddle run through multiple wilderness areas, and that is not an accident. I go there to get away from cars, infrastructure, and noise. Silence and beauty warm the soul. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects the conditions that make those rivers worth paddling, and I oppose its rescission. Water is becoming more scarce as reduced precipitation is increasing. We do not need to mess up the only clean water we are getting these days. The agency's own record acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by roadless areas, and fewer than 12 percent of those watersheds have impaired streams today. Opening these areas to roads threatens to move them into the impaired column. I ask the agency to explain on the record how it weighs this sediment risk against the marginal economic return the proposal anticipates, given that the people downstream drinking that water have no substitute source to turn to. The economic case for rescission does not hold together even on the agency's own numbers. The agency has stated 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." Those figures describe a marginal contribution to national supply. Against that, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, offset by recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. A range that wide cannot establish a net benefit. The agency must explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog is justified when its own analysis cannot show the action pays. The wildfire rationale is no more persuasive. The proposal invokes fuels management to justify rescission, but the agency's own findings state 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." If the goal is reducing fire risk, building roads works against that goal by the agency's own measure. The agency needs to reconcile the proposal 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 proposal also argues that state-by-state management can replace the national rule. The agency has already tried that approach. Its own record notes 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 Ninth Circuit reviewed that state-specific replacement and found it wanting. The agency owes the public an explanation of how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies, and an accounting of its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. Finally, the proposal questions whether the agency had authority to issue the 2001 rule at all. The courts already answered that question. The Tenth Circuit held: "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 must address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and it must lay out in plain terms the legal basis for any contrary position it now advances. Humans demand multiple resources from forest ecosystems, and not every ecosystem can be managed for all needs. Wilderness areas should be managed to be wild. Roads are not needed there. The agency has not demonstrated otherwise, and rescission should not proceed. Sincerely, Barbara