Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-382134

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is inconsistent with its own DEIS findings regarding bird abundance, wildfire ignition risks, and economic net benefits, and requests that the agency reconcile these internal contradictions and address prior judicial findings on statutory authority.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “depend on the quiet interior that the current rule protects”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “fire ignition risk would rise dramatically”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
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”
- “road system... already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found that approach wanting”
- “Tenth Circuit concluded that the rule fell within the authority Congress provided”
- “distinguishing the reasoning that court applied”

What it names

National Forests: Inyo National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of th e Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Inyo National Forest and John Muir Wilderness are where I hike, camp, and photograph: trees, flowers, wildlife, and the birds I go looking for, hawks and Clark's nutcrackers and whatever indigenous species the country offers. Roadless areas are my most treasured places. The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put those places at risk, and the agency's own record supplies the reasons to reject it. I go into roadless areas in part because the birds are there. The DEIS the agency placed before itself 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. Hawks, nutcrackers, the full range of species indigenous to the places I walk, depend on the quiet interior that the current rule protects. The agency should explain, drawing on those cited findings, how opening these areas to roads and the disturbance roads bring is consistent with its own documented understanding of what roads do to the birds that live there. The wildfire rationale offered for rescission cannot stand against the agency's own data. 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 agency is proposing to expand the road system into areas where, by its own accounting, fire ignition risk would rise dramatically. The agency must reconcile this proposal with that finding and with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is equally hollow. 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, the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency cannot establish a net benefit by its own numbers, and it owes a clear explanation of how an action that fails its own economic test, while worsening a maintenance crisis already measured in billions, serves the public interest. The procedural history of this rule also deserves a direct answer. The record quotes the USDA's own stated dissatisfaction and its rejection of the rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach." 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. The agency tried replacing the national rule with state-by-state plans before. The Ninth Circuit found that approach wanting. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and it should explain specifically how this proposal avoids repeating the deficiencies the court identified in that earlier attempt. Finally, the statutory authority argument the proposal advances has already been tested. A federal appeals court considered whether the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress authorized and held: "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 Tenth Circuit concluded that the rule fell within the authority Congress provided under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. If the agency now holds a contrary position, it must state the legal basis for that position with specificity, distinguishing the reasoning that court applied. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The places I photograph and the birds I seek there depend on protections the agency's own record shows are justified. The agency should preserve the rule. Sincerely, Maureen Grabowski Oakland, CA 94602