Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-306889

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 3, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific scientific evidence from the agency's DEIS regarding bird abundance decline and fire density on roaded lands, identifies a gap in the agency's analysis of small business impacts and reliance interests, and requests that the agency reconcile the rescission with its own findings and withdraw the regulatory flexibility certification.

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.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “birds I study and watch move out or disappear”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road... 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 its own DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit rejected that substitution”
- “regulatory flexibility certification claims no significant impact”
- “agency reversing course must identify and weigh the reliance interests”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties”
- “spreading an estimated $9 million annual expenditure loss”

What it names

Roadless areas: Santa Cruz
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

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 Bird watching is career-focused work for me, not a weekend hobby, and the forests I work in, Los Padres, Shasta-Trinity, and Stanislaus National Forests, are exactly the places this proposal would open to road-building. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I bird watch frequently up in Shasta, and the science in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement explains why roads are a direct threat to what I go there to find. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. (Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) If roads go in, the birds I study and watch move out or disappear. The agency should explain how it weighed these findings against the rescission, and what it concluded. The proposal uses wildfire and fuels management as a justification, but the agency's own record undercuts that reasoning. The DEIS 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 agency should explain why this proposal departs from that finding, and reconcile the rescission with its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for a single national rule. The agency has tried that before, and it did not survive review. The record shows that the agency previously expressed dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule's nationwide approach and favored state-by-state rulemaking. The Ninth Circuit rejected that substitution. The agency must now explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies, and address its own prior finding that local, incremental decision-making erodes nationally significant roadless values that cannot be recovered once roads go in. The regulatory flexibility certification claims no significant impact on small entities, but the agency's own analysis names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties, and its Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading an estimated $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the potentially affected roadless areas. The agency concedes that some of those firms may lose those receipts. That is not a finding of no significant impact. The certification should be withdrawn and replaced with an assessment of the businesses actually operating in these areas. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. I have built part of my career around these forests and the birds in them. The rule's protections are part of what makes that work possible. Under controlling precedent, an agency reversing course must identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is one such interest. The agency must account for the reliance interests submitted in response to its own invitation, including this one, before it proceeds further. Sincerely, Stephanie Mancilla Santa Cruz & Modesto CA