Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-612452

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

In short: The comment documents that the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with the agency's own data on wildfire ignition rates and sediment production, fails to account for the $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog, and contradicts prior judicial determinations regarding 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”
- “Opening those landscapes to new roads would extend the very ignition-prone infrastructure”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect our water sources from pollution at all costs”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is... less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit concluded... that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that sank the earlier state-by-state approach”
- “legal basis on which it now reaches a contrary conclusion after a federal appellate court ruled against that position”

What it names

Roadless areas: Rocky Mountain
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 gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Watching fire after fire move through my Rocky Mountain homes is disheartening and devastating. I have lived in rural Utah and rural North Dakota my whole life, always near wildlife and near national forest and parks, and what I have seen through those fire seasons shapes every concern I bring to this comment. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that it be withdrawn. The agency's own record is direct about what roads do to fire risk: "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 that justification runs straight into the agency's own findings. Utah alone holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. Opening those landscapes to new roads would extend the very ignition-prone infrastructure that the agency's own data, including DEIS Table 21, associates with far higher fire density than exists inside the roadless areas today. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the claimed wildfire rationale with what the ignition data actually show. Water is the most important resource we have in the world, and we need to protect our water sources from pollution at all costs. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Fewer than 12 percent of those watersheds have impaired streams today. That is a record worth protecting, and the proposal offers no credible account of how it would stay that way once road building begins. How does the agency propose to hold sediment loads in check when its own analysis attributes the overwhelming share of timber-sale sediment to roads themselves? The proposal also cannot justify itself on economic terms. The agency's record shows that the total timber volume affected by this rule is, by the agency's own description, "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." Those are marginal gains set against a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on a budget of roughly $73 million a year. We already pour enormous resources into maintaining the roads we have. The agency's 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 and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. An analysis whose own range cannot establish a net benefit does not justify expanding infrastructure the agency demonstrably cannot afford to maintain. The agency must reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain, in specific terms, where the funding for new road maintenance comes from. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace the national rule, but the agency's own prior record records its "dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule" and its "rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." That dissatisfaction does not answer the question the Ninth Circuit asked the last time the agency tried this, namely whether local decision-making incrementally erodes nationally significant roadless values that no single state-level process can protect. The agency must address that prior finding and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that sank the earlier state-by-state approach. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. Courts already answered that question. The Tenth Circuit concluded: "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." That court held 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, plainly and with specificity, the legal basis on which it now reaches a contrary conclusion after a federal appellate court ruled against that position. Sincerely, Desiree Childs Watford City North Dakota