Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-346442

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from the DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis demonstrating that road construction increases wildfire ignition risk and results in a net economic loss, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent and scientific studies to argue that the rescission lacks legal authority and ecological justification.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “unspoiled beauty”
- “biodiversity”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “rare bird encounter”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “fire density on roaded land runs far higher”
- “increase ignition risk rather than reduce it”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “recreational values the agency's own analysis acknowledges”
- “go to nature to escape”
- “peace, for quiet, for the beauty that is unspoiled”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit answered that argument directly”
- “rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit found deficiencies”
- “legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”

What it names

National Forests: Los Padres National Forest
Roadless areas: Bear CanyonBear MountainBlack ButteChalk PeakFerguson RidgeTuolumne River
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

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 hustle and bustle is what I go to nature to escape. Whether I am in Yosemite, in the Los Padres National Forest, or along the Tuolumne River corridor in the Stanislaus, what I am looking for is the same: unspoiled beauty. Mountains, rivers, the microscopic, the biodiversity, the weather, a rare bird encounter I can photograph before the moment vanishes. That kind of beauty requires that the land stay intact. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens to unravel what protects it, and I oppose the proposal in full. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for this rescission. 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 confirms that fire density on roaded land runs far higher than inside the affected roadless areas. California alone holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, including the areas of the Los Padres, Stanislaus, and Sierra that I visit and photograph, among them Black Butte, Bear Mountain, Bear Canyon, Chalk Peak, Tuolumne River, and Ferguson Ridge. Opening roads into these areas would, by the agency's own numbers, increase ignition risk rather than reduce it. The agency must explain on the record why this proposal departs from those findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data its own DEIS contains. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record concedes 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 that marginal extraction figure, the agency's 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 and a net present value range spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. Meanwhile, the Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. I photograph nature precisely because it is unspoiled by human impact, and the biodiversity and grand landscapes I seek in these California roadless areas generate the recreational values the agency's own analysis acknowledges. The agency must reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain how it justifies expanding a road system its own budget cannot maintain. The birds I hope to photograph whenever a rare encounter allows tell a clearer story than any economic projection. 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, citing Kroeger et al. 2022, McClure et al. 2013, and Ware et al. Roads and the noise they carry would degrade exactly the conditions that make a rare encounter possible. The agency must account for these documented harm pathways in any final analysis and address whether the record supports the claim that local management decisions adequately protect what a national rule now protects. On the legal authority question, the proposal argues the 2001 rule exceeded statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit answered that argument directly, reversing the district court that had enjoined the rule and stating: "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 held the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but the agency's own prior record acknowledged that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and the Ninth Circuit found deficiencies the last time this agency substituted a state-by-state framework for the national rule. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies. I go to these places for peace, for quiet, for the beauty that is unspoiled. What I photograph there cannot be recreated once roads go in. The agency must not proceed without reconciling this proposal with its own findings. Sincerely, Vanessa Abuabara Saratoga, 95070