Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602557

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

In short: The comment documents that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts the agency's own prior findings on wildfire risk and economic data, and requests the agency to reconcile these discrepancies and retain the rule without modification.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “places I seek out precisely because they are roadless”
- “Self-powered access and minimal human disturbance”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale offered for rescission contradicts the agency's own record”
- “human-caused wildfire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last substituted a state-by-state approach”
- “legal basis for any contrary position”
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”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

What it names

National Forests: Mark Twain National Forest
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 roadless areas of Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri, and the forests I frequent across California, including Mount Shasta, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Los Padres, are places I seek out precisely because they are roadless. Self-powered access and minimal human disturbance are not incidental features; they are the reason I go. I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). These are the last pristine areas in the country. Public land should be managed for the benefit of wildlife and conservation of natural resources, not for financial gain or short-sighted priorities. The proposal before the agency fails that standard on its own terms, and I ask the agency to address the following: The wildfire rationale offered for rescission contradicts the agency's own record. The agency's prior findings state: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildfire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The forests I use in California sit in precisely the kind of high-risk terrain that sentence describes. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings and 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 case for rescission is no stronger. 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." Against that baseline, 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 ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. That range 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 the analysis it commissioned cannot show the action pays. The proposal also argues that state-specific rulemaking can replace one national rule, but the agency's own record reflects a prior attempt in exactly that direction. The record states 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." Missouri alone holds 25,453 acres across its inventoried roadless areas, and the Eastern region, which includes Missouri, has 286 municipal water intakes sitting in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Those values are national in scale and cumulative in character; local decision-making can incrementally reduce them. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last substituted a state-by-state approach for the national rule. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. That question has already been litigated. A federal court of appeals 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 Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and concluded it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly the legal basis for any contrary position. I support retaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. Sincerely, Elizabeth Cooley Imperial, Missouri