Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-393131

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposed rescission contradicts its own DEIS findings regarding increased fire risk, fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit, ignores prior judicial findings on state-by-state alternatives, and lacks a legal basis under the Organic Act and MUSYA to override the 2001 Roadless 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, 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
- “find wildlife, all wildlife”
- “grizzly bear recovery plan”
- “increased contact and conflict in roaded habitat can end in grizzly mortality”
- “flora and fauna that live there”
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”
- “Opening that landscape to roads does not reduce fire risk”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion”
- “action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found it deficient”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “legal basis for any position that contradicts that holding”
- “rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach'”

What it names

Roadless areas: Bear CanyonBear MountainBlack ButteChalk PeakSanta Cruz
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291
Works cited: U 1993

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 The places I go, Black Butte, Bear Mountain, Bear Canyon, Chalk Peak, are places I go to find wildlife, all wildlife, and to be in a natural environment worth preserving. I am opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because public land should be managed to preserve the beautiful natural environment for the flora and fauna that live there, and for future generations to appreciate and enjoy. The proposal does the opposite. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for this rescission. The DEIS states plainly: "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." Bear Mountain and the other places I named sit inside the landscape this rule protects. Opening that landscape to roads does not reduce fire risk; the agency's own findings say it compounds it. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment 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 the 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 that marginal gain, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and all of this against a road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion. The agency must reconcile those numbers and explain on the record how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road network it already cannot afford to maintain. The state-by-state rationale fares no better on the record. The agency's DEIS quotes its own prior position describing "its 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 agency tried a state-by-state replacement before, and the Ninth Circuit found it deficient. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies the court identified the last time. The authority question is already settled. When the agency's power to issue the 2001 rule was challenged in court, 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." The Tenth Circuit found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and rejected the argument that it created de facto wilderness. The agency must state, on the record, the legal basis for any position that contradicts that holding. Wildlife does not negotiate around roads. The DEIS draws on the federal grizzly bear recovery plan to note that increased contact and conflict in roaded habitat can end in grizzly mortality, and that shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. Bear Canyon and Bear Mountain are not abstractions to me; they are the places I go to encounter wildlife in a landscape that still functions as one. The agency must respond specifically to the bear mortality data in its own DEIS and explain what mitigation, if any, it proposes to offset that harm should this rescission proceed. Flora, fauna, and future generations deserve a better answer than this proposal provides. Sincerely, Edward Shanken Santa Cruz, CA