Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603600

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with its own DEIS data regarding wildfire ignition rates, fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit given the $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog, ignores prior judicial findings on state-by-state approaches, contradicts Tenth Circuit holdings on statutory authority, and lacks specific analysis for water quality protections.

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

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 reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Clean water connects all of this”
- “roadless watersheds are part of what keeps water clean”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “protection will replace the 2001 rule for the municipal water intakes”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit reviewed the last time the agency substituted state petitions for the national rule and found it deficient”
- “The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “legal basis for any position that contradicts that holding”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Hiking is when I feel most at peace and in awe of the world”
- “These roadless areas are what make that possible”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”

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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hiking is when I feel most at peace and in awe of the world. These roadless areas are what make that possible, and the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens them in ways the agency's own record does not support. The agency argues that opening roadless areas to road construction would help manage wildfire. Its own findings say the opposite. The agency's 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." The agency must explain what changed. Its own DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain, clearly and in the rulemaking record, why this proposal departs from those prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with the ignition data its own analysis produced. The agency also cannot make the economics work. Its own record acknowledges: "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 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 does not establish a net benefit. The agency's road maintenance backlog already stands at $6.9 billion. How does the agency justify expanding a road system it cannot afford to maintain, for commodity yields that by its own numbers are a fraction of national production, when its own analysis cannot confirm the action pays? The agency argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. But the agency's own record reflects its prior position: "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 the last time the agency substituted state petitions for the national rule and found it deficient. The agency has already found that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. This proposal must address what is different now, and explain how it avoids the specific deficiencies identified in that prior litigation. The agency also suggests the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The courts that examined this question did not agree. The record includes the following holding: "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 held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state in the rulemaking record the legal basis for any position that contradicts that holding. Clean water connects all of this. Without clean water we cannot survive and thrive. These roadless watersheds are part of what keeps water clean, and the agency's own analysis shows that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The agency must explain what specific protection will replace the 2001 rule for the municipal water intakes and drinkers who depend on these watersheds, and it must do so with analysis, not assertion. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that each of these points receive a substantive response before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Lyla Rothschild Tucson AZ 85719