Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-311695

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 3, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data (DEIS Table 21), economic cost-benefit inconsistencies, and statutory authority, while identifying specific locations (Bear Canyon, Boundary Peak) and requesting reconciliation of the rescission with prior findings and court rulings.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “biodiversity depends on”
- “We need these places protected for wildlife”
- “Biodiversity is essential to the future of mankind”
- “what is lost when unroaded terrain is opened to roads”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “roadless conditions limit the ignition risk”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Public lands should be managed to keep humans from making mistakes that cause wildfires”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The economic case for rescission is also weak”
- “net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “We cannot afford to maintain the roads we already have”
- “agency is already $6.9 billion behind on road maintenance”
Governance Policy Process
- “The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule”
- “The Ninth Circuit found it deficient”
- “local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”
- “explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”

What it names

National Forests: Inyo National Forest Los Padres National Forest
Roadless areas: Bear CanyonSanta Cruz
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

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 roadless areas inside Los Padres and Inyo National Forests are where I hike and camp. I go to experience nature and enjoy the scenery, and I believe the places that make that possible deserve a serious federal commitment, not a rollback. This comment opposes the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. Bear Canyon, 14,328 acres inside Los Padres National Forest, and Boundary Peak, 210,884 acres inside Inyo National Forest, are the kinds of places this rule has protected. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. That is a lot of ground that biodiversity depends on. We need these places protected for wildlife. Biodiversity is essential to the future of mankind, and no serious management proposal can ignore what is lost when unroaded terrain is opened to roads. The agency's own record makes the fire case against this rescission plainly. I go to these forests understanding that roadless conditions limit the ignition risk that comes with human access, and the record supports that understanding. The agency's own environmental analysis 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." Public lands should be managed to keep humans from making mistakes that cause wildfires. Roadless areas restrict access, thus restricting potential wildfire. We cannot afford to keep fighting wildfires caused by humans in the forest via roads. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, 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 for rescission is also weak on the agency's own terms. The record before the agency acknowledges 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 negative $92 million to positive $199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. We cannot afford to maintain the roads we already have, and the agency is already $6.9 billion behind on road maintenance against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. The agency must explain on the record how expanding a road system carrying that backlog is justified when its own numbers do not resolve in favor of doing so. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. The record tells a different story. The agency's own language shows that it previously "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 experiment was litigated. The Ninth Circuit found it deficient. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. How a patchwork of state petitions would protect values at that scale is a question the proposal does not answer. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last tried this approach. On the question of statutory authority, the courts have already spoken. The record includes a Tenth Circuit holding stating: "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 found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and held that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must explain, with specificity, the basis for any contrary position. Sincerely, Richard Popchak [Santa Cruz, CA