Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-322579

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from the DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis demonstrating that the agency's analysis fails to properly weigh reliance interests, small entity impacts, and the increased risk of human-caused wildfires in Santa Clarita, thereby documenting deficiencies in the agency's justification for rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “trails around Santa Clarita are where I go to breathe”
    • “hike those trails with my dog, Jeff, seeking beautiful and safe spaces”
    • “road bike in this area as well, on nature trails”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas”
    • “human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads”
    • “road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires”
    • “face a measurable increase in fire risk if roading proceeds”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “Forest Service road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
    • “justifies expanding that system when its own analysis cannot show the expansion pays for itself”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “watersheds containing those areas include 1,034 municipal water intakes”
    • “communities that depend on those watersheds”
    • “face a measurable increase in fire risk if roading proceeds”

What it names

National Forests
Angeles National Forest
Roadless areas
Magic Mountain

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 trails around Santa Clarita are where I go to breathe, and what happens to them matters to me in ways that are practical, not sentimental. I hike those trails with my dog, Jeff, seeking beautiful and safe spaces where we can meet others with similar values. I road bike in this area as well, on nature trails that draw many riders who talk openly about the sacred nature of these spaces for their mental and physical health and well-being, and how that carries over into their personal and professional lives. Magic Mountain, within the Angeles National Forest, is part of the landscape that sustains this community. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens it, and the agency's own numbers make the strongest argument against proceeding. The agency's record 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." Against those figures, the proposal asks the public to accept that opening inventoried roadless areas to road construction and resource extraction will produce meaningful economic benefit. The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, while projecting recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million, a spread so wide it cannot establish that this action produces a net benefit at all. The Forest Service road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I ask the agency to explain, with specificity, how it justifies expanding that system when its own analysis cannot show the expansion pays for itself. The regulatory flexibility analysis compounds that problem. "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 agency reaches its no-significant-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas, and the analysis itself concedes that some of those firms may lose these receipts. That is not a flexibility analysis; it is an averaging exercise that obscures the real harm. The agency must withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. The riders and hikers I know around Santa Clarita have organized their recreation, their health, and in some cases their livelihoods around the continued protection these trails have carried since 2001. "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." This comment is exactly such an interest. Under established administrative law, an agency changing course is obligated to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created, not merely invite them and file them away. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, and explain how the proposal accounts for them. Finally, the fire analysis cuts directly against the case for rescission. "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." The effects analysis concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and the watersheds containing those areas include 1,034 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Southwest region alone. The communities that depend on those watersheds, including the one I live in, face a measurable increase in fire risk if roading proceeds, a risk the agency's own data quantifies and then fails to weigh against its claimed wildfire reduction rationale. The agency must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and place that number honestly on the scale beside the claimed benefits. I oppose rescission and urge the agency to let this rule stand. Sincerely, Liz Morasso Santa Clarita, 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