Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-313711

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, wildlife habitat impacts, and economic net benefits, while citing specific DEIS tables, regulatory citations, and court rulings to argue that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is inconsistent with the agency's own findings and legal authority.

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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “observe wildlife in their habitats”
    • “watching coyotes, deer, bobcats, wild turkeys”
    • “habitat that road-induced ignitions can eliminate”
    • “bird richness declines with road presence”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “far higher fire density on roaded land”
    • “depars from its own prior findings on fire occurrence”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “documented habitat and watershed harms”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

What it names

National Forests
Inyo National ForestSequoia National ForestSierra National Forest
Roadless areas
Kings RiverRinconSouth Sierra
Law cited
28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Rincon roadless area in Sequoia National Forest, the Kings River area in Sierra National Forest, the South Sierra area in Inyo National Forest: these are the places I go to take in the beauty of open space, to explore nature, and to observe wildlife in their habitats. At a safe distance, I enjoy watching coyotes, deer, bobcats, wild turkeys, cottontails, and a variety of birds. The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens what keeps those places worth going to, and I oppose it on the following grounds. The agency justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management. Its own record says otherwise. 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." DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The deer, wild turkeys, and other birds I watch in these forests depend on habitat that road-induced ignitions can eliminate. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and why it does not reconcile the rescission with that ignition data. The DEIS cites research finding that roads built for oil and gas extraction may alter mule deer migration routes and increase their movement speed, and the agency's own Tribal Summary Impact Statement credits roadless protections with the recovery of deer populations by preserving habitat structure. The DEIS also names wild turkey among the game that needs complex forest structure with mast-producing trees, and finds that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, with road-noise experiments in a roadless area cutting bird abundance by over a quarter and causing 31 percent of species to avoid the noise entirely. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and across the Pacific Southwest region 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The scale of what is at stake for both wildlife and downstream communities in the forests I named is not speculative; it is documented in the agency's own analysis. I ask the agency to address on the record how it weighs those documented habitat and watershed harms against any projected benefit from rescission. The economic case for rescission is the agency's own record: "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 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, all while the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile the proposal with an economic analysis that cannot establish a net benefit and explain how expanding a road system under those conditions serves the public interest. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace a national rule, but the agency's own prior rulemaking record reflects a different lesson. The DEIS states: "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." The Ninth Circuit reviewed the last time the agency substituted state-by-state management for a national rule and found it deficient. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies or addressed its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. That question requires a direct answer. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. Courts that examined that question reached a conclusion the agency cannot simply set aside. The Tenth Circuit held: "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 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not accept the argument that it created de facto wilderness. The agency must state the basis for any contrary legal position and explain why it believes rescission is legally required rather than simply chosen. Sincerely, Amy Pal Mountain View, CA

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless