Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-259868

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted August 23, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is inconsistent with its own DEIS data regarding wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit given a negative net present value range and a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, and improperly excludes foreseeable plan amendments from environmental review while soliciting comment on them.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Topics

Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale the agency offers deserves direct scrutiny”
- “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 DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Governance Policy Process
- “rescind without holding a single equivalent proceeding”
- “regulatory flexibility certification is similarly unsupported”
- “solicit comment on them... That is not a defensible analytical boundary”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “quiet it takes to photograph private moments”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”

What it names

National Forests: Mendocino National Forest
Roadless areas: Reister Canyon

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Nature does not wait for process, and the quiet it takes to photograph private moments in a place like Reister Canyon, a roadless area of 5,897 acres in the Mendocino NF in California, is not renewable the way a logged stand is. Roads persist. That is the argument the agency itself made when it spent years holding more than 600 public meetings and receiving 1.6 million comments to write the rule it now proposes to rescind without holding a single equivalent proceeding. These roadless forests need to be protected for future generations, and this proposal does not make that case. The wildfire rationale the agency offers deserves direct scrutiny. The agency's own 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." I ask that the agency to explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is no stronger. The agency's own record states: "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." Against projected timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. A range that spans negative territory is not a demonstrated benefit. The agency must explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net gain justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The regulatory flexibility certification is similarly unsupported. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That conclusion is reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than looking at the guides and outfitters actually holding permits in the affected areas. The certification should be withdrawn and the analysis redone for the entities actually operating in the places at issue. Finally, the agency cannot in good conscience declare plan amendments beyond the scope of this proposal and then solicit comment on them. The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions “could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed,” declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830). That is not a defensible analytical boundary. The foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including expanded timber harvest area, belongs inside this action's environmental review, not outside it. Sincerely, Jackie Biegel Los Angeles, CA