Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603648

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 contradicts its own prior findings on wildfire incidence and economic cost-benefit analysis, fails to address the legal deficiencies identified by the Ninth Circuit regarding state-specific management, and ignores the Tenth Circuit's validation of the rule's statutory authority under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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

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”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “Forest Service is already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it has”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit reviewed that prior attempt to substitute state-by-state management for the national rule and found it wanting”
- “Tenth Circuit already reviewed whether the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's power and held otherwise”
- “agency must explain in this record what basis it has for that position in light of that holding”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “forest areas where I walk my dog and camp in primitive sites”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “My children enjoy the outdoors and nature”

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 knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forest areas where I walk my dog and camp in primitive sites are the kind of country this rule was written to protect. I am opposing the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's own record contains a finding I want addressed directly. "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 proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet this language comes from the agency itself. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which the record indicates reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics do not hold together either. The agency's own record states 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." The agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service is already $6.9 billion behind on maintaining the roads it has, against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. My view is simple: take care of the existing roads. Building new roads into country that has none, when the agency cannot maintain what it already manages, adds cost without a demonstrated return. I ask that the agency explain, with specificity, how an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies further expanding a road system already carrying that backlog. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace the national rule, but this ground has already been tested. The agency's own record acknowledges "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 prior attempt to substitute state-by-state management for the national rule and found it wanting. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies or addressed its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. That question deserves a direct answer in this record. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit already reviewed whether the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's power and held otherwise, reversing a permanent injunction and remanding to vacate it. The court's ruling was clear: "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 specifically found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not find that it created de facto wilderness. The agency's current proposal rests in part on a contrary statutory reading. The agency must explain in this record what basis it has for that position in light of that holding. My children enjoy the outdoors and nature. I want my grandchildren to have as much opportunity as I did. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. That asymmetry is itself a reason this record is inadequate. The agency should answer each of the specific points raised above before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Christine Cavender Clermont, FL