Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-344513

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding bird habitat degradation, wildfire ignition risks, and economic maintenance backlogs in the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests, while citing the Tenth Circuit's reversal of the 2001 rule injunction and the Constitution's Preamble to argue against the rescission of 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

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
- “less intact habitat, less wildlife”
- “bird richness declines around roads in forested habitat”
- “road-noise in a roadless area cut bird abundance over 25%”
- “protect all remaining intact habitat, thwart its fragmentation”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “greater wildfire risk”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “The wildfire argument for rescission collapses against the agency's own data”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
Water Quality Quantity
- “necessity of protecting watersheds from degradation”
- “Threatening watersheds is counter to the Preamble to the Constitution”
- “protecting watersheds from... road construction”
- “31.5 years as an employee of a large municipal drinking water utility”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “That approach was rejected by the courts”
- “Tenth Circuit's holding that reversed a permanent injunction against the 2001 rule”
- “The agency's claim that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority must be squared with that holding”
- “avoid the same fate”

What it names

National Forests: Inyo National Forest Sequoia National Forest
Roadless areas: Black CanyonCoyote NorthCoyote SoutheastGreenhorn CreekMill CreekSoldier CanyonSouth ForkSouth 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 Fishing both sides of the Sierra taught me this lesson: the most degraded places are around roads. I fished the up the South Fork Kern River. But cattle grazing and off-road vehicle activity ruined it. I sought more remote. What I found was more roads means greater abuse, more trash, and more environmental degradation. I have hiked and camped from the Appalachian Mountains to Hawaii, from our nation's southern border to its northern one with Canada to enjoy creation's magnificence, to witness nature's unfolding, for the open space free from congestion, noise, and pollution of human built environments. It sustains me, elevates me, rendering strength and hope for the world. In the Sequoia National Forest the inventoried roadless areas I care about include Woolstaff, Channell, Greenhorn Creek, Mill Creek, Woodpecker, South Sierra, Scodies, and Domelands. On the Inyo National Forest, I name Black Canyon, Coyote Southeast, Soldier Canyon, and Coyote North. Another road into any of them means more traffic, more noise, more dust, more trash, less intact habitat, less wildlife, and greater wildfire risk. I am a passionate wildflower lover and a devoted watcher of birds in their home environments. I have grave concerns for their continued existence, and am witnessing a diminution of species. The agency's own record speaks directly to what roads do to bird communities: the DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines around roads in forested habitat, and that road-noise in a roadless area cut bird abundance over 25%, with 31% of species avoiding noise entirely. The agency must explain specific mitigations it proposes for bird communities in the named roadless areas of the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests, and how such mitigations conforms with its own cited research. The wildfire argument for rescission collapses against the agency's own data. Wildfires are a constant presence in my life. Three fires occurred near my home, this year. I have seen the aftermath, and have great respect for the responders. The agency's own 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 agency must explain why the proposal departs from its own findings on fire occurrence, and reconcile the rescission with its own ignition data. The economic case for rescission is hollow. The Forest Service record concedes that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total US production, and the total oil and gas production from all NF lands is about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The FS cannot adequately maintain its current road inventory. Opening roadless areas to new construction exacerbates that terrible situation, especially given the funding shortfalls happening right now. I find it counterintuitive in the extreme. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis and explain how an action that cannot establish a clear net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency argues that state-specific approaches can replace a national rule. That approach was rejected by the courts. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids the same fate. It should also address the Tenth Circuit's holding that reversed a permanent injunction against the 2001 rule, finding: "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." The agency's claim that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority must be squared with that holding, and the basis for any contrary position stated plainly. From 31.5 years as an employee of a large municipal drinking water utility, I learned firsthand the necessity of protecting watersheds from degradation, whether from mining, logging, road construction, invasive species, or off-road vehicle recreation. Threatening watersheds is counter to the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States; "...promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY." The proposed rescission undercuts these constitutionally mandated purposes. The agency must address this conflict directly. We must protect all remaining intact habitat, thwart its fragmentation, fend off activities that would degrade its integrity, and leave for our progeny the gloriously alive and rich biological legacy earth provides us. This is why I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, David R McMullen 217 Terrace Dr Big Pine, CA 93513