Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-272286

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted August 26, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding road-generated sedimentation (DEIS Table 35), wildfire ignition data (DEIS Table 21), and cost-benefit calculations, while citing the Tenth Circuit's reversal of the injunction to challenge the agency's statutory authority claims.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “preserving watersheds in roadless areas will provide significantly more benefit”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “put that sediment directly into the watersheds those intakes depend on”
- “water supply interests documented in DEIS Table 35”
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 roadless areas in that landscape to new road construction... contradicts data the agency itself produced”
- “ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I have spent as much time as I can hiking and camping throughout it”
- “I would be devastated to see the environment degraded or portions of it removed from recreational use”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “escape from the increasing suburbanization and commercialization”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The state-by-state rationale for rescission has been litigated before”
- “That prior attempt at a state-by-state replacement failed in the courts”
- “The Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”

What it names

National Forests: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Stanislaus National Forest
Roadless areas: Granite ChiefTuolumne River

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The western United States is the most beautiful area in the world, and I have spent as much time as I can hiking and camping throughout it. Granite Chief Wilderness in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in California has given me an escape from the increasing suburbanization and commercialization of the rest of the Lake Tahoe area. I hike, camp, and backpack there, and I would be devastated to see the environment degraded or portions of it removed from recreational use. I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001), and I ask that the agency give the specific points below a substantive answer. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean water is a necessity for human life to continue, and preserving watersheds in roadless areas will provide significantly more benefit to our society than the extractive activities this rescission would invite. The agency's own analysis recognizes that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Roads through places like Granite Chief and the Tuolumne River roadless area in the Stanislaus National Forest would put that sediment directly into the watersheds those intakes depend on. I ask the agency to address, specifically and in the record, how rescission is consistent with its own findings on road-generated sedimentation and the water supply interests documented in DEIS Table 35. The wildfire rationale given for rescission sits in direct tension with the agency's own prior findings. The 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 Tahoe region already faces serious fire pressure. Opening roadless areas in that landscape to new road construction, on the stated premise of improving fire management, contradicts data the agency itself produced. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I also do not want my tax dollars spent building and maintaining new roads that will largely serve private companies and may not even remain open to the public, when the agency cannot maintain the roads it already has. The record before the agency 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 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, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. The agency must reconcile that analysis with the proposal and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog serves the public interest. The state-by-state rationale for rescission has been litigated before. The record reflects that "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." That prior attempt at a state-by-state replacement failed in the courts. The agency's own findings have recognized that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency needs to explain here how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that doomed the earlier approach. Finally, the agency's stated concern about statutory authority is not supported by the judicial record. The Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and concluded it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must set out in full the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. Sincerely, Emily Wheeler Oakland, CA