Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-322391

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the DEIS regarding wildlife habitat loss, sediment impacts on water quality, and the failure to weigh reliance interests, while citing 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3) to argue that existing regulatory exceptions already address the claimed permitting burdens.

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, 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
- “watch scrub jays and red-tailed hawks”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat”
- “shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Clean water underlies all of this”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “Opening roadless watersheds to construction puts that sediment into water that feeds into every system downstream”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency tried that local approach before and lost in court”
- “The flexibility the agency claims it needs is already in the rule”
- “The regulatory flexibility certification does not hold up”
- “The agency invited comment on reliance interests and then did not weigh any”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “where I go for trees, wildlife, peace, and clean air”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “I plan my hiking and birding and time with my son around land that the rule protects”

What it names

Roadless areas: Arroyo Seco
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 land from Arroyo Seco toward Big Bear Lake is where I go for trees, wildlife, peace, and clean air. I watch scrub jays and red-tailed hawks there. My son and I once tracked a mountain lion and never did see it, but that memory stays with me. That country, and the birds and animals in it, is why I am filing this comment against the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My view on public land is straightforward. We have reached a point where the impact of humans on the land has resulted in destruction. Land should be open for people, but with the needs of the environment considered first, and first means wildlife before extractive use. The birds I watch depend directly on what roads do to forested habitat. 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. Opening these areas to road construction would reach into the habitat where I watch birds and expect to keep watching them. The agency has not explained how that loss is acceptable or reversible. I ask that it do so on the record. Bears matter to me in this same country, and the DEIS is direct about what roads mean for them: the increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. The agency must explain, specifically, how rescinding a national protective rule advances any recovery interest for bears that depend on roadless conditions. The agency's stated preference for state-by-state management is not new. The agency tried that local approach before and lost in court. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. The justification that the current rule creates unworkable permitting burdens is not supported when the rule's own text is read carefully. It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of "reserved or outstanding rights" or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3). The flexibility the agency claims it needs is already in the rule. I ask that the agency identify which specific burdens are not already addressed by the rule's existing exceptions, including those for public health and safety, existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection, and that it quantify those burdens on the record. Clean water underlies all of this. It protects all life, human and animal. Groundwater directly impacts ocean water, and the water cycle keeps our food supply safe, in addition to plants, animals, and humans. It is as basic to our survival as anything. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Opening roadless watersheds to construction puts that sediment into water that feeds into every system downstream. The agency should answer, specifically, how it reconciles that finding with any claim that rescission is without significant environmental impact. The regulatory flexibility certification does not hold up. 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. The guides and outfitters working the areas I hike are not a national average. They are permit holders in specific places, and spreading aggregate loss across every firm nationally conceals real harm to real people. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Finally, the agency invited comment on reliance interests and then did not weigh any. The proposal 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. My reliance is real. I plan my hiking and birding and time with my son around land that the rule protects. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Rescind this proposal. Sincerely, Margaret MacMillan Van Nuys Ca.