Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602929

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it contradicts the agency's own Draft EIS findings on wildfire risk, fails to adequately analyze cumulative environmental impacts in the DEIS, and violates procedural requirements for public participation and ESA Section 7 consultations.

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

  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “violates the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act”
    • “arbitrary and capricious disregard of agency's own science”
    • “truncated process violates APA's requirement for meaningful public participation”
    • “Fails hard-look review under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. State Farm”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “loss of carbon sinks, habitat fragmentation, salmon spawning habitat destruction”
    • “old-growth ecosystem loss”
    • “ranges of threatened/endangered species (marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, salmon populations)”
    • “protecting one-third of undeveloped National Forest System lands”
  • Tribal Sovereignty
    • “breaches federal trust responsibility to tribes”
    • “violates Executive Order 13175 requiring government-to-government consultation”
    • “endangers treaty-protected hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ancestral lands”
    • “Industrial roadbuilding violates federal obligations to sovereign tribes”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “degradation of municipal watersheds”
    • “salmon spawning habitat destruction”

What it names

Law cited
463 U.S. 29Executive Order 13175

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

FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT — PROPOSED RESCISSION OF 2001 ROADLESS RULE Docket Number: 2026-18648 October 6, 2026 TO THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: I, Lionel P. Trepanier (lioneltrepanier@gmail.com, Palm Desert, CA 92211), submit this comment in strong opposition to rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a 25-year participant in Forest Service rulemaking, having submitted comments on 100+ USFS projects including the Roadless Rule and Spotted Owl EIS. VIOLATION OF LAW This rescission violates the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Federal Indian Law on multiple independent grounds: 1. APA VIOLATION—Arbitrary and Capricious: The agency's own Draft EIS states: "Road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as density of roads increases so does probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions." The proposed rescission contradicts this by authorizing new roads to mitigate wildfire risk. This is arbitrary and capricious disregard of agency's own science in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 2. FISCAL IRRATIONALITY: USFS deferred maintenance backlog exceeds $8.6-10.8 billion, with $6.4-6.9 billion tied to 370,000 miles of existing roads built 60+ years ago. Proposing new road construction while systematically underfunding existing infrastructure violates APA rational basis requirements. 3. PROCEDURAL INADEQUACY: Comment period is 53 days total (21 initial + 32 days). Original 2001 Roadless Rule: 129 days + 600 meetings. 2005 Bush rescission attempt: 182 days. This truncated process violates APA's requirement for meaningful public participation. 99% of initial public comments opposed rescission. 4. NEPA VIOLATION: DEIS fails to adequately analyze cumulative environmental impacts on 58.5 million acres, including degradation of municipal watersheds, loss of carbon sinks, habitat fragmentation, salmon spawning habitat destruction, and old-growth ecosystem loss. Fails hard-look review under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983). 5. ESA VIOLATION: Sweeping rescission across ranges of threatened/endangered species (marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, salmon populations) without completed ESA Section 7 consultations violates 16 U.S.C. § 1536. Grounds for injunctive relief. 6. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW VIOLATION: Rescission breaches federal trust responsibility to tribes, violates Executive Order 13175 requiring government-to-government consultation, and endangers treaty-protected hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ancestral lands. Industrial roadbuilding violates federal obligations to sovereign tribes. DEMAND I demand the Forest Service: - WITHDRAW the proposed rescission immediately - MAINTAIN the 2001 Roadless Rule in entirety - COMPLETE mandatory ESA Section 7 consultations - Provide 120-day comment period for any future rulemaking The 2001 Roadless Rule—enacted with broad bipartisan support and defended by federal courts—represents 25 years of successful policy protecting one-third of undeveloped National Forest System lands. This unlawful rescission will be challenged vigorously in federal court. A comprehensive detailed comment with full legal analysis is attached. Respectfully submitted, Lionel P. Trepanier Palm Desert, California 92211 lioneltrepanier@gmail.com October 6, 2026 --- [ATTACH FULL COMMENT DOCUMENT WITH COMPLETE ANALYSIS]

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless