Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609818

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

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS's rationale for rescinding the Roadless Rule is contradicted by its own data in Tables 14 and 21 and activity figures on pages 14-15, specifically regarding insect/disease risk and fire ignition rates, and requests a factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v) to withdraw or reconcile the causal chain linking the rule to poor forest health.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “healing solitude of nature”
- “source of love, of community, of acceptance”
- “retreat to the healing solitude”
- “depend on them for solace”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “comparative data the DEIS itself publishes contradict each step”
- “Table 14 (DEIS p. 75)”
- “Table 21 (DEIS p. 98)”
- “arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused ignitions at 3.0 fires per million acres per year within potentially affected IRAs against 22.4 on other NFS lands”
- “roads facilitate human access”
- “lack of active management of the national forests”
- “hazardous fuels reduction within IRAs”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “harm rescission would do to the species who live on these lands”
- “wild, roadless lands”
- “protections you consider removing”

What it names

Law cited: 284 F.3d 1062 463 U.S. 29 7 CFR 1b

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceAlternativeLegal

I implore you not to rescind the Roadless Rule. Having struggled with severe depression all my life, I cannot overstate how important these wild lands are to me. In my lows of loneliness and isolation, the one source of love, of community, of acceptance I could count on has been forests like the ones whose protections you consider removing. In an America without wild, roadless lands, where a person in pain can no longer retreat to the healing solitude of nature, I would have ended my life long ago. It breaks my heart to think of the harm rescission would do to the species who live on these lands, not to mention the people like me who depend on them for solace. The Rationale for the Proposed Rule states that 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 has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns” (DEIS p. 19). The comparative data the DEIS itself publishes contradict each step of that chain, and the FEIS must correct or withdraw the assertion. First, insect and disease. Table 14 (DEIS p. 75), “Percent of NFS forested acres at risk of tree mortality due to major forest insects and diseases, by land classification,” sets the actively managed lands — NFS ownerships outside designated areas — against inventoried roadless areas in the potentially affected environment. Northern Region: 50.4 percent outside designated areas against 34.2 percent in IRAs. Southwestern: 17.5 against 13.5. Pacific Southwest: 18.9 against 15.2. Pacific Northwest: 34.7 against 23.5. The DEIS states the conclusion in its own words on the same page: “the percent of forests at risk is similar or lower in potentially affected IRAs when compared to NFS forests outside of designated areas.” In the four western regions holding most of the roadless estate, the lands the rule has restricted from vegetation management carry less insect and disease risk than the lands it has not. Second, fire. Table 21 (DEIS p. 98) reports ignition density from the Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Module for 2014–2024: human-caused ignitions at 3.0 fires per million acres per year within potentially affected IRAs against 22.4 on other NFS lands, and natural ignitions at 8.5 against 16.8. The DEIS’s own text on that page explains why, finding that ignitions “increase in abundance with proximity to roads, supporting the notion that roads facilitate human access” and in turn more human-caused fires. The access the proposed rescission would restore is the variable the agency’s own data associate with a sevenfold higher human ignition rate. Third, the premise that the 2001 Rule produced a lack of active management. The DEIS reports that the Forest Service Activity Tracking System shows “an average of 500 acres per year of timber harvest and a total of 1.8 million acres of hazardous fuels reduction within IRAs” over the last decade (p. 15). On the same pages it concedes that “There is no national-level tracking of the review, approval, or implementation of 2001 Roadless Rule exceptions” (p. 14), and at p. 75 that while “Some of this annual mortality is observed within IRAs,” it is “not possible to characterize the mortality observed on IRAs on a national scale.” The agency thus states that it can measure neither the exceptions actually granted nor the roadless-specific mortality outcome, while asserting a causal relationship running from the first to the second. The rationale is therefore not merely unsupported; it is contradicted by the analysis printed in the same document. An explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency is arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); see also Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (programmatic EIS may not pass over a risk the record permits it to analyze). I request a factual correction to the Rationale for the Proposed Rule under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v), reconciling it with Table 14, Table 21, and the activity figures at pp. 14–15 — either by withdrawing the forest-health causal chain, or by stating, region by region and against those tables, where roadless designation is in fact associated with worse forest-health outcomes than active management. The correction cannot be deferred to project-level NEPA: the assertion is a rule-level justification, it appears in the rule’s rationale rather than in any effects analysis, and it is the premise against which alternatives were eliminated from detailed study as failing the purpose and need. If the FEIS retains the assertion, it should state which acres, in which regions, the tables are said to support it on, and where in the record the agency’s response is accounted for under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3).