Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602819

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 10/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS failed to respond to a specific request to disclose which forests have completed, are undergoing, or have not started plan revisions, and argues that only forests that have not started revisions should be subject to the recission because others have already engaged in place-based decision-making.

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 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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “biological diversity”
- “wildlife habitat”
- “protecting roadless areas”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water”
- “watershed”
Governance Policy Process
- “land management planning process”
- “interdisciplinary planning”
- “place-based, collaborative decisionmaking”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “volumes that dispel lack of active management”
- “evidence forest management itself fosters such concerns”
- “research being done”

What it names

National Forests: Flathead National Forest Flathead National Forest Lolo National Forest Monongahela National Forest
Law cited: 16 U.S.C. 1604

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

I submitted comments to the proposed rule in Sept 2025. Attached below. Consider these integral to my current comments. I strongly oppose recission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I served on the roadless rule Content Analysis Team (CAET) in 2000, we read and synthesized all comments. Sentiment strongly favored protecting roadless areas and benefits they provide: clean water, biological diversity, wildlife habitat, forest health, and recreation. Climate change and population growth have increased support for roadless areas. I worked on the WMPZ Forest Plan Revision Team for forests in Western Montana; Flathead, Lolo, and Bitterroot. Despite efforts and substantial expense by American taxpayers, these were shelved due to a national lawsuit. Courts ruled the 2005 planning rule was inconsistent with the National Forest Management Act. The Flathead National Forest completed its forest plan revision in 2018 under the 2012 planning rule. My September 2025 comments must be considered in conjunction with my current comment for 53828 Federal Register/Vol. 91, No. 160/Thursday, August 20, 2026/Proposed Rules, which states, “As resource conditions and national policy have evolved, the Department has determined that a single, national blanket approach to the management of inventoried roadless areas taken in the 2001 Roadless Rule constrains responsible officials from exercising the timely, place-based discretion needed to meet the Forest Service’s multiple-use mission.” NOTE: While the 2001 roadless rule constrains officials from exercising their absolute place-based discretion, it does not follow such discretion is needed to meet the Forest Service’s multiple-use mission. On the contrary, NFMA was driven by management skewed to commodity production over multiple use values: watershed, wildlife, wildlands, recreation. Conditions on the Bitterroot amd the Monongahela national forest were evidence a more balanced approach was needed, resulting in NFMA. “In addition, evolving national priorities and changed conditions have required more active management approaches. The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service’s ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which in turn has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns.” NOTE: See pg 8 from my 2025 comments for a research being done. There are volumes that dispel lack of active management as a driver of forest health concerns. On the contrary, there is evidence forest management itself fosters such concerns. “This proposed rescission is intended to return primary authority for determining the appropriate management of inventoried roadless areas at the local level to the land management planning process mandated by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 ……The National Forest Management Act establishes the requirement for the Forest Service to develop land management plans, including direction in 16 U.S.C. 1604(a) and (b) for interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions. These statutory requirements are implemented through the Agency’s land management planning framework, which require consideration of the plan area in the context of the broader landscape and requires that each plan reflects the unit’s expected distinct roles and contributions to the local area, region, and Nation. “ NOTE: Interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions was done on the Flathead NF and ongoing revision on the Lolo NF. Refer to my Sept 2025 comment using Flathead as an example. Of 500,000 roadless acres, fewer than 200,000 remained. The rest were assigned management areas based on conditions and public input. Decision-makers balanced conflicting uses and devised management area prescription for roadless areas. “At the same time, this planning approach allows for place- based, collaborative decisionmaking that is responsive to specific on-the- ground resource conditions, rather than a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ national mandate. While national-level considerations are important, land management planning efforts by local decisionmakers at the national forest or regional scale are best positioned to make decisions about inventoried roadless areas because they understand the unique ecological, economic, and social needs of their communities.” Note: Yes, this is being done for revisions under the 2012 planning rule. Ironically, the Roadless Rule Recission is itself a blanket one-size-fits-all mandate that the rule dispesl. I requested the DEIS disclose forests that have done plan revisions, those in the process, and those not started. Only those that have not started could be subject to the recission. Those completed or undergoing revisions have engaged in place-based, collaborative decision-making responsive to on-the-ground conditions. The DEIS fails to respond to my request.