Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-384691

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

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from the agency's own draft EIS and Federal Register notices demonstrating that road construction increases wildfire ignition risk and that the proposed rescission lacks a net economic benefit, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent to establish that the 2001 Roadless Rule was legally authorized under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Backpacking the John Muir Trail”
- “wild and remote places carry a value”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “The land needs to remain wild”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “authorized under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act”
- “what specific legal basis does the agency have for taking a position contrary to that holding”
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”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

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 the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Backpacking the John Muir Trail through the Inyo National Forest is where I fell in love with public land. The landscape is like no other. No photograph does it justice, though I try my best. What the Inyo showed me, and what other public lands like it confirm, is that wild and remote places carry a value that belongs to all of us across generations. Public lands belong to the people. They are not to be managed for mining rights or logging. The land needs to remain wild. That conviction brings me to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency frames this proposal in part as a wildfire management measure, but its own record undercuts that framing. 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." If the agency's own prior findings show that roads raise ignition risk rather than reduce it, the proposal cannot honestly be described as protective of these forests. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The record before the agency states: "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." These are the agency's own figures. Against a resource contribution that small, the proposal projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency's own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit. It should explain, clearly and on the record, how an action with that level of economic uncertainty justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can serve as an adequate substitute for a single national rule. But this is not a new argument, and it has a history the agency appears unwilling to confront directly. The record shows that the agency itself previously acknowledged its own "dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state framework, the Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain what, if anything, is different now. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. That question was already answered by the courts. The Tenth Circuit 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." That court found the 2001 rule was authorized under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. What specific legal basis does the agency have for taking a position contrary to that holding, and where in this rulemaking record is that basis articulated? The Inyo and the wild country like it are not renewable on any human timescale. Managing them for the people means keeping them intact. I ask that this comment be placed in the docket and that each of these questions receive a substantive response before any final action is taken.