Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-322854

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

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts its own prior findings regarding wildfire ignition rates, fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit given the maintenance backlog, and lacks a sound legal basis for overriding the Ninth Circuit's rejection of state-by-state alternatives.

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 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “peace that comes from the absence of roads”
- “hike and ride my bicycle in roadless areas”
- “enjoy nature, get fresh air, and find quiet”
- “want to see nature in its wild condition”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Opening these landscapes to roads would increase that risk”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit reviewed precisely that substitution”
- “legal deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “Tenth Circuit... held: 'we REVERSE the district court's order'”
- “found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
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”
- “existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit”

What it names

National Forests: San Bernardino National Forest
Roadless areas: City CreekDeep CreekPyramid Peak ARaywood Flat B
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The peace that comes from the absence of roads is something I value deeply. I hike and ride my bicycle in roadless areas in the San Bernardino National Forest, including Deep Creek, Pyramid Peak A, City Creek, and Raywood Flat B, to enjoy nature, get fresh air, and find quiet. I go there without worrying about being struck by a vehicle. I want to see nature in its wild condition, without the trash that humans often bring to spoil the beauty. I want these areas preserved and left alone. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens exactly what I go to these places for, and the agency's own record does not support it. The agency argues that rescission would help manage wildfire, but its own findings say the opposite. The record 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 areas I hike and ride in, within San Bernardino National Forest, sit in a region that faces serious fire risk. Opening these landscapes to roads would increase that risk, not reduce it. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, 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 affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record 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." Against projected timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service, the record projects recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit, yet the proposal moves forward while the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile these numbers and explain how expanding a road network it cannot already maintain serves the public interest. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule. That argument has already been tested and found wanting in court. The Ninth Circuit reviewed precisely that substitution the last time the agency abandoned the national rule, and the record reflects the agency's own prior acknowledgment of dissatisfaction with what it called an inflexible nationwide approach. But the courts found that local, incremental decision-making can erode nationally significant roadless values in ways a state-level framework cannot prevent. California alone 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 areas I use for hiking and cycling are part of that larger system of protection. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time it tried this approach. Finally, the agency's claim that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority ignores the courts that already examined that question. The Tenth Circuit, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, held: "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 was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly, on the record, what legal basis supports a contrary conclusion. I want Deep Creek, Pyramid Peak A, City Creek, and Raywood Flat B left alone. The agency has not shown that rescission serves the public. Its own data, its own prior findings, and the courts that reviewed this rule all point the other direction. Sincerely, Mike Virnig San Bernadino, CA